A Comparative Study of Manual and Digital Methods and Stereopsis Assessment in Young Adults: Comparison of Manual and Digital Methods

. Gul e Lala; Nashrah  Imtiaz; Arsham  Ikram; Anusha  Sheraz; Qurat  ul Ain; Sawera  Ammad; Mawra   Zahid

doi:10.54393/pjhs.v4i09.1024

Authors

Gul e Lala Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan
Nashrah Imtiaz Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan
Arsham Ikram Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan
Anusha Sheraz Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan
Qurat ul Ain Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan
Sawera Ammad Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan
Mawra Zahid Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54393/pjhs.v4i09.1024

Keywords:

Digital, Manual Random Dot Test, Ametropias, Emmetropes, Light Examination, Basic Refraction

Abstract

Reduced stereopsis or depth perception may be the early indicator of abnormal motor functions in people therefore, the stereopsis test is considered ideal for visual screening. It can accomplish the need for the assessment of stereopsis by using a cost-effective smartphone application. Objective: To compare the stereo acuity values of manual and digital stereopsis tests by using the Random Dot Stereo Acuity test with Lea Symbols (Manual) and the SAT App for Android (Digital). Methods: A comparative cross-sectional study was carried out in the Eye department at The University of Lahore Teaching Hospital from February 2023 to May 2023. A total of 62 subjects aged 15-35 years were included in our study, out of which 31 were emmetropes and 31 were ametropes. Screening of subjects was done which included torch light examination and basic refraction. Manually stereopsis was measured using Random Dot stereo acuity test with Lea symbols and digitally it was measured by SAT application. Results: The mean ± SD stereo acuity value of the manual test (N=62) was 60.5242 ± 36.47607 seconds of arc and the mean stereo acuity value of the digital test (N=62) was 70.0968 ± 28.29569 seconds of arc. P-value was 0.006 which confirmed that our results were statistically significant. Conclusions: Our study highlighted the comparison of digital and manual stereopsis tests. We obtained different stereo acuity values from both tests on the same individuals. Hence, the manual test gave better values of stereopsis than the digital test.

References

Kiran A, Rashid F, Siddique M, Jabbar M, Shahid MH, Khokhar SQ, et al. Comparison of the Efficacy of TNO and Titmus Fly in Myopic Anisometropes. Pakistan Journal of Medical & Health Sciences. 2022 Jul; 16(06): 321. doi: 10.53350/pjmhs22166321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53350/pjmhs22166321

Lagstein O, Hecht I, Anteby I. Comparison of a New, Filter-Free Stereopsis Test (BEST) With the Randot Stereotest in a Pediatric Cohort. Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology & Strabismus. 2020 Mar; 57(2): 129-35. doi: 10.3928/01913913-20200217-01. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/01913913-20200217-01

Chaturvedi I and Sharma P. Commentary: Automated strabismus measurement–Orthoptics with an edge. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2022 Oct; 70(10): 3628. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1501_22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_1501_22

Deepa BM, Valarmathi A, Benita S. Assessment of stereo acuity levels using random dot stereo acuity chart in college students. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care. 2019 Dec; 8(12): 3850. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_755_19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_755_19

Backus BT, Tran T, Blaha OJ. Clinical use of the Vivid Vision system to treat disorders of binocular vision. 2017. [23rd Sep 2023]. Available at: https://cn.seevividly.com/downloads/Clinical%20use%20of%20the%20Vivid%20Vision%20system%20to%20treat%20disorders%20of%20binocular%20vision.pdf.

Khan N, Zaka-ur-Rab S, Ashraf M, Mishra A. Comparison of stereoacuity in patients of anisometropia, isometropia and emmetropia. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2022 Dec; 70(12): 4405. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_658_22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_658_22

Elamurugan V, Shankaralingappa P, Aarthy G, Kasturi N, Babu RK. Assessment of stereopsis in pediatric and adolescent spectacle-corrected refractive error–A cross-sectional study. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2022 Feb; 70(2): 604. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_997_21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_997_21

Cumming BG and DeAngelis GC. The physiology of stereopsis. Annual Review of Neuroscience. 2001 Mar; 24(1): 203-38. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.203

Paudel N, Thompson B, Chakraborty A, Harding J, Jacobs RJ, Wouldes TA, et al. Relationship between visual and neurodevelopmental measures at 2 years with visual acuity and stereopsis at 4.5 years in children born at risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics. 2022 Jan; 42(1): 195-204. doi: 10.1111/opo.12910. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12910

Joo HJ and Choi DG. Analysis of stereopsis and fusion in school-aged children with reduced visual acuity due to refractive error. Plos One. 2023 Apr; 18(4): e0284112. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284112

O'toole AJ and Kersten DJ. Learning to see random-dot stereograms. Perception. 1992 Apr; 21(2): 227-43. doi: 10.1068/p210227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/p210227

Siegel RM. Choices: The science of bela julesz. Plos Biology. 2004 Jun; 2(6): e172. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020172. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020172

Paul CM and Sathyan S. Comparison of the efficacy of Lea Symbol chart and Sheridan Gardiner chart for preschool vision screening. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2018 Jul; 66(7): 924. doi: 0.4103/ijo.IJO_1078_17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_1078_17

McCaslin AG, Vancleef K, Hubert L, Read JC, Port N. Stereotest comparison: Efficacy, reliability, and variability of a new glasses-free stereotest. Translational Vision Science & Technology. 2020 Aug; 9(9): 29. doi: 10.1167/tvst.9.9.29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.9.9.29

Gadia D, Garipoli G, Bonanomi C, Albani L, Rizzi A. Assessing stereo blindness and stereo acuity on digital displays. Displays. 2014 Oct; 35(4): 206-12. doi: 10.1016/j.displa.2014.05.010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2014.05.010

Vancleef K and Reed J. Measuring near stereopsis. Optician. 2017 Nov; 2017(11): 6838-41. doi: 10.12968/opti.2017.11.6838. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12968/opti.2017.11.6838

Bonfanti S, Gargantini A, Esposito G, Facchin A, Maffioletti M, Maffioletti S. Evaluation of stereoacuity with a digital mobile application. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology. 2021 Sep; 259(9): 2843-8. doi: 10.1007/s00417-021-05195-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-021-05195-z

Tittes J, Baldwin AS, Hess RF, Cirina L, Wenner Y, Kuhli-Hattenbach C, et al. Assessment of stereovision with digital testing in adults and children with normal and impaired binocularity. Vision Research. 2019 Nov; 164: 69-82. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2019.07.006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2019.07.006

Posselt BN, Seemiller E, Winterbottom M, Baber C, Hadley S. A Digital Alternative to the TNO Stereo Test to Qualify Military Aircrew. Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance. 2022 Dec; 93(12): 846-54. doi: 10.3357/AMHP.6111.2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3357/AMHP.6111.2022

Yang JW, Son MH, Yun IH. A study on the clinical usefullness of digitalized random-dot stereoacuity test. Korean Journal of Ophthalmology. 2004 Dec; 18(2): 154-60. doi: 10.3341/kjo.2004.18.2.154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2004.18.2.154