Comparison of blur and magnification effects on stereopsis: overall and meridional, monocularly‐ and binocularly‐induced
Purpose To determine whether monocularly‐ and binocularly‐induced spherical and meridional blur and aniseikonia had similar effects on stereopsis thresholds. Methods Twelve participants with normal binocular vision viewed McGill modified random dot stereograms to determine stereoacuities in a four‐a...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Ophthalmic & physiological optics 2020-09, Vol.40 (5), p.660-668 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 668 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 660 |
container_title | Ophthalmic & physiological optics |
container_volume | 40 |
creator | Atchison, David A Schmid, Katrina L Haley, Emma C Liggett, Elisabeth M Lee, Sally J Lu, Jianing Moon, Ho Jung Baldwin, Alex S Hess, Robert F |
description | Purpose
To determine whether monocularly‐ and binocularly‐induced spherical and meridional blur and aniseikonia had similar effects on stereopsis thresholds.
Methods
Twelve participants with normal binocular vision viewed McGill modified random dot stereograms to determine stereoacuities in a four‐alternative forced‐choice procedure. Astigmatism was induced by placing trial lenses in front of the eyes. Twenty‐three conditions were used, consisting of zero (no lens), +1 D and +2 D spheres and cylinders at axes 180, 45 and 90 in front of the right eye, and the following binocular combinations of both lens powers: R × 180/L × 180, R × 45/L × 45, R × 90/L × 90, R sphere/L sphere, R × 180/L × 90, R × 45/L × 135, R × 90/L × 180. Aniseikonia was induced by placing magnifying lenses in front of the eyes. Twenty‐three conditions were used, consisting of zero, 6% and 12% overall magnification and both magnifications at axes 180, 45 and 90 in front of the right eye only, and the following binocular combinations using 3% and 6% lenses: R × 90/L × 90, R × 45/L × 45, R × 180/L × 180, R overall/L overall, R × 90/L × 180, R × 45/L × 135, and R × 180/L × 90.
Results
Stereopsis losses for binocular blur effects with parallel axes (non‐anisometropic) were the same as for monocular blur effects of the same axes, and these were strongly dependent on axis (spherical blur and ×90 had the greatest effects). Binocular blur effects with orthogonal axes had greater effects than with parallel axes, with the axis combination of the former having no effect (e.g. R × 90/L × 180 was similar to R × 45/L × 135). For induced aniseikonia, splitting the magnifications between the eyes improved stereopsis slightly, and the effects were not dependent on axis.
Conclusion
Binocular blur affects stereopsis similarly to monocular meridional blur if axes in the two eyes are parallel, whereas the effect is greater if the axes are orthogonal. In meridional aniseikonia, splitting magnification between the right and left lenses produces a small improvement in stereopsis that is independent of axis direction and right/left combination. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/opo.12724 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2432859720</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2432859720</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3304-aa3a0ca00cd111b408b79df91118401500a678711d281349f10858653120ea1a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1KxDAQx4MouK4efIOCFwW7O0naTetNFr9gYT3oucymqWRJm5q0yoIHH8Fn9EmMWw8iOJf5-s3Anz8hxxQmNMTUtnZCmWDJDhnRRKQx5ZTvkhGwUKcJZPvkwPs1AAghshF5m9u6Rae9bSJbRSvTuwibMqrxqdGVltjpsFFVpWTno1D6TjllW6_9RWRflENjhgPldBlYNOdRbRsre4PObD7fP7brlf490k3ZS1Uekr0KjVdHP3lMHq-vHua38WJ5cze_XMSSc0hiRI4gEUCWQeIqiFiJvKzy0GQJ0BQAZyITlJYsozzJKwpZms1SThkopMjH5HT42zr73CvfFbX2UhmDjbK9L1jCWZbmgkFAT_6ga9u7oGpL5bngDESgzgZKOuu9U1XROl2j2xQUim8fiuBDsfUhsNOBfdVGbf4Hi-X9crj4AnM-i8Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2439973207</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of blur and magnification effects on stereopsis: overall and meridional, monocularly‐ and binocularly‐induced</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Atchison, David A ; Schmid, Katrina L ; Haley, Emma C ; Liggett, Elisabeth M ; Lee, Sally J ; Lu, Jianing ; Moon, Ho Jung ; Baldwin, Alex S ; Hess, Robert F</creator><creatorcontrib>Atchison, David A ; Schmid, Katrina L ; Haley, Emma C ; Liggett, Elisabeth M ; Lee, Sally J ; Lu, Jianing ; Moon, Ho Jung ; Baldwin, Alex S ; Hess, Robert F</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
To determine whether monocularly‐ and binocularly‐induced spherical and meridional blur and aniseikonia had similar effects on stereopsis thresholds.
Methods
Twelve participants with normal binocular vision viewed McGill modified random dot stereograms to determine stereoacuities in a four‐alternative forced‐choice procedure. Astigmatism was induced by placing trial lenses in front of the eyes. Twenty‐three conditions were used, consisting of zero (no lens), +1 D and +2 D spheres and cylinders at axes 180, 45 and 90 in front of the right eye, and the following binocular combinations of both lens powers: R × 180/L × 180, R × 45/L × 45, R × 90/L × 90, R sphere/L sphere, R × 180/L × 90, R × 45/L × 135, R × 90/L × 180. Aniseikonia was induced by placing magnifying lenses in front of the eyes. Twenty‐three conditions were used, consisting of zero, 6% and 12% overall magnification and both magnifications at axes 180, 45 and 90 in front of the right eye only, and the following binocular combinations using 3% and 6% lenses: R × 90/L × 90, R × 45/L × 45, R × 180/L × 180, R overall/L overall, R × 90/L × 180, R × 45/L × 135, and R × 180/L × 90.
Results
Stereopsis losses for binocular blur effects with parallel axes (non‐anisometropic) were the same as for monocular blur effects of the same axes, and these were strongly dependent on axis (spherical blur and ×90 had the greatest effects). Binocular blur effects with orthogonal axes had greater effects than with parallel axes, with the axis combination of the former having no effect (e.g. R × 90/L × 180 was similar to R × 45/L × 135). For induced aniseikonia, splitting the magnifications between the eyes improved stereopsis slightly, and the effects were not dependent on axis.
Conclusion
Binocular blur affects stereopsis similarly to monocular meridional blur if axes in the two eyes are parallel, whereas the effect is greater if the axes are orthogonal. In meridional aniseikonia, splitting magnification between the right and left lenses produces a small improvement in stereopsis that is independent of axis direction and right/left combination.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0275-5408</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1475-1313</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/opo.12724</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>aniseikonia ; anisometropia ; Binocular vision ; meridional ; Splitting ; stereoacuity ; stereopsis</subject><ispartof>Ophthalmic & physiological optics, 2020-09, Vol.40 (5), p.660-668</ispartof><rights>2020 The Authors Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics © 2020 The College of Optometrists Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 The College of Optometrists</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3304-aa3a0ca00cd111b408b79df91118401500a678711d281349f10858653120ea1a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3304-aa3a0ca00cd111b408b79df91118401500a678711d281349f10858653120ea1a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3099-6545 ; 0000-0003-2660-4497</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fopo.12724$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fopo.12724$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Atchison, David A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmid, Katrina L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haley, Emma C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liggett, Elisabeth M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Sally J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lu, Jianing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moon, Ho Jung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baldwin, Alex S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hess, Robert F</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of blur and magnification effects on stereopsis: overall and meridional, monocularly‐ and binocularly‐induced</title><title>Ophthalmic & physiological optics</title><description>Purpose
To determine whether monocularly‐ and binocularly‐induced spherical and meridional blur and aniseikonia had similar effects on stereopsis thresholds.
Methods
Twelve participants with normal binocular vision viewed McGill modified random dot stereograms to determine stereoacuities in a four‐alternative forced‐choice procedure. Astigmatism was induced by placing trial lenses in front of the eyes. Twenty‐three conditions were used, consisting of zero (no lens), +1 D and +2 D spheres and cylinders at axes 180, 45 and 90 in front of the right eye, and the following binocular combinations of both lens powers: R × 180/L × 180, R × 45/L × 45, R × 90/L × 90, R sphere/L sphere, R × 180/L × 90, R × 45/L × 135, R × 90/L × 180. Aniseikonia was induced by placing magnifying lenses in front of the eyes. Twenty‐three conditions were used, consisting of zero, 6% and 12% overall magnification and both magnifications at axes 180, 45 and 90 in front of the right eye only, and the following binocular combinations using 3% and 6% lenses: R × 90/L × 90, R × 45/L × 45, R × 180/L × 180, R overall/L overall, R × 90/L × 180, R × 45/L × 135, and R × 180/L × 90.
Results
Stereopsis losses for binocular blur effects with parallel axes (non‐anisometropic) were the same as for monocular blur effects of the same axes, and these were strongly dependent on axis (spherical blur and ×90 had the greatest effects). Binocular blur effects with orthogonal axes had greater effects than with parallel axes, with the axis combination of the former having no effect (e.g. R × 90/L × 180 was similar to R × 45/L × 135). For induced aniseikonia, splitting the magnifications between the eyes improved stereopsis slightly, and the effects were not dependent on axis.
Conclusion
Binocular blur affects stereopsis similarly to monocular meridional blur if axes in the two eyes are parallel, whereas the effect is greater if the axes are orthogonal. In meridional aniseikonia, splitting magnification between the right and left lenses produces a small improvement in stereopsis that is independent of axis direction and right/left combination.</description><subject>aniseikonia</subject><subject>anisometropia</subject><subject>Binocular vision</subject><subject>meridional</subject><subject>Splitting</subject><subject>stereoacuity</subject><subject>stereopsis</subject><issn>0275-5408</issn><issn>1475-1313</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kc1KxDAQx4MouK4efIOCFwW7O0naTetNFr9gYT3oucymqWRJm5q0yoIHH8Fn9EmMWw8iOJf5-s3Anz8hxxQmNMTUtnZCmWDJDhnRRKQx5ZTvkhGwUKcJZPvkwPs1AAghshF5m9u6Rae9bSJbRSvTuwibMqrxqdGVltjpsFFVpWTno1D6TjllW6_9RWRflENjhgPldBlYNOdRbRsre4PObD7fP7brlf490k3ZS1Uekr0KjVdHP3lMHq-vHua38WJ5cze_XMSSc0hiRI4gEUCWQeIqiFiJvKzy0GQJ0BQAZyITlJYsozzJKwpZms1SThkopMjH5HT42zr73CvfFbX2UhmDjbK9L1jCWZbmgkFAT_6ga9u7oGpL5bngDESgzgZKOuu9U1XROl2j2xQUim8fiuBDsfUhsNOBfdVGbf4Hi-X9crj4AnM-i8Q</recordid><startdate>202009</startdate><enddate>202009</enddate><creator>Atchison, David A</creator><creator>Schmid, Katrina L</creator><creator>Haley, Emma C</creator><creator>Liggett, Elisabeth M</creator><creator>Lee, Sally J</creator><creator>Lu, Jianing</creator><creator>Moon, Ho Jung</creator><creator>Baldwin, Alex S</creator><creator>Hess, Robert F</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3099-6545</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2660-4497</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202009</creationdate><title>Comparison of blur and magnification effects on stereopsis: overall and meridional, monocularly‐ and binocularly‐induced</title><author>Atchison, David A ; Schmid, Katrina L ; Haley, Emma C ; Liggett, Elisabeth M ; Lee, Sally J ; Lu, Jianing ; Moon, Ho Jung ; Baldwin, Alex S ; Hess, Robert F</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3304-aa3a0ca00cd111b408b79df91118401500a678711d281349f10858653120ea1a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>aniseikonia</topic><topic>anisometropia</topic><topic>Binocular vision</topic><topic>meridional</topic><topic>Splitting</topic><topic>stereoacuity</topic><topic>stereopsis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Atchison, David A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmid, Katrina L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haley, Emma C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liggett, Elisabeth M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Sally J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lu, Jianing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moon, Ho Jung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baldwin, Alex S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hess, Robert F</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Ophthalmic & physiological optics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Atchison, David A</au><au>Schmid, Katrina L</au><au>Haley, Emma C</au><au>Liggett, Elisabeth M</au><au>Lee, Sally J</au><au>Lu, Jianing</au><au>Moon, Ho Jung</au><au>Baldwin, Alex S</au><au>Hess, Robert F</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of blur and magnification effects on stereopsis: overall and meridional, monocularly‐ and binocularly‐induced</atitle><jtitle>Ophthalmic & physiological optics</jtitle><date>2020-09</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>660</spage><epage>668</epage><pages>660-668</pages><issn>0275-5408</issn><eissn>1475-1313</eissn><abstract>Purpose
To determine whether monocularly‐ and binocularly‐induced spherical and meridional blur and aniseikonia had similar effects on stereopsis thresholds.
Methods
Twelve participants with normal binocular vision viewed McGill modified random dot stereograms to determine stereoacuities in a four‐alternative forced‐choice procedure. Astigmatism was induced by placing trial lenses in front of the eyes. Twenty‐three conditions were used, consisting of zero (no lens), +1 D and +2 D spheres and cylinders at axes 180, 45 and 90 in front of the right eye, and the following binocular combinations of both lens powers: R × 180/L × 180, R × 45/L × 45, R × 90/L × 90, R sphere/L sphere, R × 180/L × 90, R × 45/L × 135, R × 90/L × 180. Aniseikonia was induced by placing magnifying lenses in front of the eyes. Twenty‐three conditions were used, consisting of zero, 6% and 12% overall magnification and both magnifications at axes 180, 45 and 90 in front of the right eye only, and the following binocular combinations using 3% and 6% lenses: R × 90/L × 90, R × 45/L × 45, R × 180/L × 180, R overall/L overall, R × 90/L × 180, R × 45/L × 135, and R × 180/L × 90.
Results
Stereopsis losses for binocular blur effects with parallel axes (non‐anisometropic) were the same as for monocular blur effects of the same axes, and these were strongly dependent on axis (spherical blur and ×90 had the greatest effects). Binocular blur effects with orthogonal axes had greater effects than with parallel axes, with the axis combination of the former having no effect (e.g. R × 90/L × 180 was similar to R × 45/L × 135). For induced aniseikonia, splitting the magnifications between the eyes improved stereopsis slightly, and the effects were not dependent on axis.
Conclusion
Binocular blur affects stereopsis similarly to monocular meridional blur if axes in the two eyes are parallel, whereas the effect is greater if the axes are orthogonal. In meridional aniseikonia, splitting magnification between the right and left lenses produces a small improvement in stereopsis that is independent of axis direction and right/left combination.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/opo.12724</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3099-6545</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2660-4497</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0275-5408 |
ispartof | Ophthalmic & physiological optics, 2020-09, Vol.40 (5), p.660-668 |
issn | 0275-5408 1475-1313 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2432859720 |
source | Access via Wiley Online Library |
subjects | aniseikonia anisometropia Binocular vision meridional Splitting stereoacuity stereopsis |
title | Comparison of blur and magnification effects on stereopsis: overall and meridional, monocularly‐ and binocularly‐induced |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-30T18%3A12%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20blur%20and%20magnification%20effects%20on%20stereopsis:%20overall%20and%20meridional,%20monocularly%E2%80%90%20and%20binocularly%E2%80%90induced&rft.jtitle=Ophthalmic%20&%20physiological%20optics&rft.au=Atchison,%20David%20A&rft.date=2020-09&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=660&rft.epage=668&rft.pages=660-668&rft.issn=0275-5408&rft.eissn=1475-1313&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/opo.12724&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2432859720%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2439973207&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |