A subscription to JoVE is required to view this content. Sign in or start your free trial.
Here, we present three common stereopsis measurement methods to measure patients with amblyopia and the comparison of the efficacy of different methods.
This study aimed to compare the measuring stereopsis results of unilateral amblyopia during amblyopic treatment by employing some of the most widely used clinical tests. Thirty-four individuals with previously untreated unilateral amblyopia, aged 8.4 ± 2.7 years, were included in the study. Monocular (best corrected visual acuity [BCVA] at distance) and binocular (including Titmus, Random-dot, and Frisby stereopsis) visual functions were measured at baseline and 2-month and 6-month visits after synthetical treatment.
We found that Titmus stereopsis was always significantly better than Random-dot stereopsis (p < 0.001). Frisby stereopsis was also always significantly better than Random-dot stereopsis (p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between Titmus stereopsis and Frisby stereopsis (p = 0.562). However, interestingly, there was no significant difference in the mean improvement of the three stereopsis methods from baseline to the 2-month visit, F = 1.158, p = 0.318.
Similarly, a significant difference was also lacking in the mean improvement of the three stereopsis methods from baseline to the 6-month visit, F = 0.302, p = 0.740. We conclude that there will be different results obtained from different stereopsis measuring methods used to measure amblyopia in patients. We recommend performing at least two types of stereoscopic measurements to evaluate each case of amblyopia. However, for observing therapeutic effects, each measurement method has the same performance for clinical results during amblyopic treatment.
Amblyopia is a disorder of development of the visual system that results from abnormal visual input during the critical phase of early development, affecting between 1% and 5% of the general population1,2,3,4. It often affects only one eye, caused by strabismus, anisometropia, or form deprivation during visual development. Persons with unilateral amblyopia are clear-sighted under normal everyday viewing conditions, but the vision is dominated by the strong eye. Webber suggested that reduced stereopsis is the most common visual deficit associated with amblyopia5. Furthermore, stereopsis is more degraded by monocular blur (or monocular contrast reduction) than by both eyes being blurred6,7. Even if the visual acuity (VA) of the amblyopic eye has been successfully corrected, their stereopsis remained impaired8.
Impairment associated with amblyopia may have a great influence on persons' lives: visually guided hand movements take longer and are less accurate under monocular viewing conditions than under binocular vision9. Moreover, the performance of motor skills tasks is related to the subject's stereoacuity, and in a large cohort of children and adults, those with normal stereoacuity were found to perform motor tasks best10. Walking performance is also significantly degraded; relative to people with normal binocular viewing, walkers are slowed by ~10% in monocular vision conditions and raise their feet higher when stepping over obstacles11. It has also been reported that reduced stereoacuity affects more complex visuomotor tasks, including reading ability in children aged 5-6 years and academic performance in reading, writing, mathematics, and spelling ability in 5- to 9-year-olds12,13. Impaired stereopsis may also limit career options for amblyopes.
Therefore, in the past few decades, we have come to realize that restoration of VA is not the only goal of amblyopia management. Rather, the recovery of a patient's binocular visual function, especially in terms of stereopsis, should be paid attention to. Previous research has demonstrated that binocular function can be improved with the enhancement of VA in the process of amblyopia treatment14,15,16. For example, Lee showed that when employing occlusion therapy for amblyopia, as VA improves, stereopsis generally improves alongside it (using the Titmus test)14. Wallace found that better outcome related to stereoacuity (using the Randot Preschool Stereoacuity test) was associated with better baseline stereoacuity and better amblyopic eye acuity as an outcome15. Stewart found that stereoacuity (using the Frisby test) improved for almost one-half of the study participants after treatment16. However, the methods used for measuring and quantifying stereopsis in their study were significantly different. Therefore, the differences between these improvements cannot be compared.
The stereoacuity results are also affected by the measurement method. For example, in the widely used Randot 'Circles' Test, the circles are presented on a background of random dots. However, these dots are highly visible monocularly, which may be conducive to amblyopic patients with poor vision still seeing them17. Another widely used stereoscopic test is the Titmus Stereo Test. However, it also has monocular clues, which give rise to false positive results18. For instance, the inclusion of monocular cues makes it possible for subjects to pass the initial two to four levels of the test without stereopsis18,19. Similarly, in the Frisby test, it was found that several children with amblyopia who passed the test had interocular differences of 4-5 lines in VA20. Another point is that the repeatability and agreement in stereoacuity measures are different. The repeatability of stereoacuity measures has been found to be low in patients with poor binocular vision but fairly good in patients with normal binocular vision except on the Random-dot stereopsis test21.
As mentioned above, stereopsis is a binocular visual function that is particularly important to everyone. However, there are many issues hindering the measurement of stereopsis in reality (e.g., limitations of the measurement method, repeatability, agreement). Previous research mainly focused on one stereopsis test as the standard for recovery. Therefore, we ask the following question: Is this standard reliable? If we use different stereopsis measurement methods to evaluate the recovery of stereopsis, will the results be the same or different? When there is a change during the treatment for amblyopia using a given stereopsis measurement, how do we know whether the change is sufficient to be clinically significant or whether the results may be attributed to the technique used for measurement? To address these questions, in the present study, we compared the stereopsis measurement results for unilateral amblyopia during amblyopia treatment using three following clinical tests, which are some of the most widely used approaches: Random-dot stereopsis, Titmus stereopsis, and Frisby stereopsis. The study aimed to evaluate the differences in the three stereopsis measurement methods related to measuring the degree of improvement of binocular visual function during the treatment of amblyopia and to find the correlations between them.
The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of Anhui Medical University. Written informed consent was obtained from each participant's parent or legal guardian after an explanation of the nature and possible consequences of the study. The methods and data collection were carried out under approved guidelines. Thirty-four individuals with unilateral amblyopia, including 21 boys and 13 girls aged 8.4 ± 2.7 years, were included in this study. They were recruited from the Department of Ophthalmology of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University (Anhui, China).
1. Patient selection
2. Visual function test
3. Statistical methods
Visual benefits of synthetic treatment in unilateral amblyopia
BCVA
The mean amblyopic eye BCVA improvement from baseline to the 2-month visit with synthetical treatment was 0.19 ± 0.14 logMAR (95% confidence interval [CI] of the difference was [0.14, 0.24]), and this improvement was statistically significant (mean BCVA ± standard deviation [SD] at baseline, 0.60 ± 0.24 vs 2-month visit, 0.41 ± 0.21, t (33) = 7.903, p < 0.001;
Study design and participants
The 34 participants with unilateral amblyopia, including 21 boys and 13 girls aged 8.4 ± 2.7 years, were newly diagnosed and had never received any treatment (including spectacle wear or occlusion) before they participated in the study. In the 34 participants, anisometropic amblyopia was most prevalent (25/34, 74%), whereas strabismic amblyopia was least prevalent (9/34, 26%). The clinical details are shown in Table 1.
...
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
This work was supported by Anhui Natural Science Research Project of Colleges and Universities KJ2021A0328 to JW; Translational Medical Research Project 2022ZHYJ05 to JW. The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
40 cm mark ruler | |||
Frisby stereoscopic vision tester | Frisby Stereotest Co., UK | - | This stereopsis consists of three items:6 mm plate (340 arcsec), 3 mm (170 arcsec), 1.5 mm (55 arcsec). |
Random-dot stereoscopic vision tester | Baoshijia Co., China | - | This stereopsis consists of seven Random-dot stereograms (from 800 to 40 arcsec). |
SPSS 24.0 | IBM Corp., Armonk, NY | Statistical analysis software | |
Standard Tumbling E Chart | Bjsibote Co., China | - | Executive standard number: GB/T 11533-2011 |
Stopwatch | |||
Titmus stereoscopic vision tester | Stereo Optical Co., America | SO005 | This stereopsis consists of three items: the butterfly (3,000 arcsec), animals (800, 400, 200 arcsec), and circles (800–40 arcsec). |
Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article
Request PermissionThis article has been published
Video Coming Soon
Copyright © 2025 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved