See the published version of this preprint at BMC Ophthalmology.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the size of the dots in random-dot stereograms on the results of stereoacuity measurements.
Methods
A stereopsis measurement system was created using a phoropter and two 4K smartphones. Three dot sizes, including 1×1 pixel, 6×6 pixels, and 10×10 pixels (equivalent to decimal acuity 6.0, 1.0, and 0.6, respectively), were used to form random-dot arrays, and each test pattern had one digit hidden within it. The resulting stereograms were tested on 30 subjects with normal acuity and stereoacuity.
Results
Stereoacuity measured with the 1-pixel dots was significantly worse than that measured with the 6-pixel dots (Mann-Whitney U test, Z=-6.531, P<0.001) and the 10-pixel dots (Z=-6.494, P<0.001). No significant difference was found between 6-pixel dot and 10-pixel dot stereograms (Z=-0.443, P=0.658).
Conclusion
The size of the dots in random-dot stereograms affects the test results significantly when the dots are too small for the eye to resolve.
Keywords
stereopsis, random-dot stereograms, smartphone
Figure 1
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Ophthalmology.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 09 Apr, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 07 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 31 Mar, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 15 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 13 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 12 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 02 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 01 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 01 Mar, 2020
Version 1
Posted 12 Jul, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 03 Feb, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 29 Jan, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 21 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 21 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 14 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 14 Jan, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 29 Jul, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 29 Jul, 2019
Editor assigned
On 15 Jul, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 09 Jul, 2019
Editor invited
On 09 Jul, 2019
First submitted
On 23 Jun, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Biomedical Engineering
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Ophthalmology.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Ophthalmology.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 09 Apr, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 07 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 31 Mar, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 15 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 13 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 12 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 02 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 01 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 01 Mar, 2020
Version 1
Posted 12 Jul, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 03 Feb, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 29 Jan, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 21 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 21 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 14 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 14 Jan, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 29 Jul, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 29 Jul, 2019
Editor assigned
On 15 Jul, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 09 Jul, 2019
Editor invited
On 09 Jul, 2019
First submitted
On 23 Jun, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Biomedical Engineering
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Ophthalmology.
Background
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the size of the dots in random-dot stereograms on the results of stereoacuity measurements.
Methods
A stereopsis measurement system was created using a phoropter and two 4K smartphones. Three dot sizes, including 1×1 pixel, 6×6 pixels, and 10×10 pixels (equivalent to decimal acuity 6.0, 1.0, and 0.6, respectively), were used to form random-dot arrays, and each test pattern had one digit hidden within it. The resulting stereograms were tested on 30 subjects with normal acuity and stereoacuity.
Results
Stereoacuity measured with the 1-pixel dots was significantly worse than that measured with the 6-pixel dots (Mann-Whitney U test, Z=-6.531, P<0.001) and the 10-pixel dots (Z=-6.494, P<0.001). No significant difference was found between 6-pixel dot and 10-pixel dot stereograms (Z=-0.443, P=0.658).
Conclusion
The size of the dots in random-dot stereograms affects the test results significantly when the dots are too small for the eye to resolve.
Figure 1
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...