Suppr超能文献

定量评估眼优势感觉的测试方法比较。

A comparison of tests for quantifying sensory eye dominance.

作者信息

Bossi Manuela, Hamm Lisa M, Dahlmann-Noor Annegret, Dakin Steven C

机构信息

UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, Bath St, London EC1V 9EL, UK.

School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of Auckland, Auckland 1142, New Zealand; New Zealand National Eye Centre, University of Auckland, Auckland 1142, New Zealand.

出版信息

Vision Res. 2018 Dec;153:60-69. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2018.09.006. Epub 2018 Oct 22.

Abstract

Clinicians rely heavily on stereoacuity to measure binocular visual function, but stereo-vision represents only one aspect of binocularity. Lab-based tests of sensory eye dominance (SED) are commonplace, but have not been translated to wider clinical practice. Here we compare several methods of quantifying SED in a format suitable for clinical use. We tested 30 participants with ostensibly normal vision on eight tests. Seven tests (#1-7) were designed to quantify SED in the form of an interocular balance-point (BP). In tests #1-6, we estimated a contrast-BP, the interocular difference in contrast required for observers to be equally likely to base their judgement on either eye, whereas in test #7 we measured binocular rivalry (interocular ratio of sensory dominance duration). We compare test-retest reliability (intra-observer consistency) and test-validity (inter-observer discriminatory power) and compare BP to stereoacuity (test #8). The test that best preserved inter-observer differences in contrast balance while maintaining good test-retest reliability was a polarity judgement using superimposed opposite-contrast polarity same-identity optotypes. A reliable and valid measure of SED can be obtained rapidly (20 trials) using a simple contrast-polarity judgement. Tests that use polarity-rivalrous stimuli elicit more reliable judgments than those that do not. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Although sensory eye dominance is central to understanding normal and disordered binocular vision, there is currently no consensus as to the best way to measure it. Here we compare several candidate measures of sensory eye dominance and conclude that a reliable measure of SED can be achieved rapidly using a judgement of stimulus contrast-polarity.

摘要

临床医生在很大程度上依赖立体视锐度来测量双眼视觉功能,但立体视觉只是双眼性的一个方面。基于实验室的感觉眼优势(SED)测试很常见,但尚未转化为更广泛的临床实践。在这里,我们以适合临床使用的形式比较了几种量化SED的方法。我们对30名表面视力正常的参与者进行了八项测试。七项测试(#1 - 7)旨在以眼间平衡点(BP)的形式量化SED。在测试#1 - 6中,我们估计了对比度BP,即观察者基于任何一只眼睛做出判断的可能性相等时所需的眼间对比度差异,而在测试#7中,我们测量了双眼竞争(感觉优势持续时间的眼间比率)。我们比较了重测信度(观察者内一致性)和测试效度(观察者间辨别力),并将BP与立体视锐度进行比较(测试#8)。在保持良好重测信度的同时,最能保留观察者间对比度平衡差异的测试是使用叠加的相反对比度极性相同身份视标进行的极性判断。使用简单的对比度极性判断,可以快速(20次试验)获得可靠且有效的SED测量值。使用极性竞争刺激的测试比不使用的测试能引发更可靠的判断。意义声明:尽管感觉眼优势对于理解正常和紊乱的双眼视觉至关重要,但目前对于测量它的最佳方法尚无共识。在这里,我们比较了几种感觉眼优势的候选测量方法,并得出结论,通过对刺激对比度极性的判断可以快速实现对SED的可靠测量。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验