Graefe S E, Haase W
Abteilung für Ple- und Orthoptik, Universitäts-Augenklinik, Hamburg, Germany.
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1997 Dec;235(12):755-60. doi: 10.1007/BF02332859.
Partitioning experiments have been used historically and in the recent past to evaluate space perception in visually normal and disturbed individuals. Specifically, amblyopic patients display notably distorted and/or uncertain spatial localization when assessed by either line or space bisection.
This investigation was concerned with the comparison of line bisection with space bisection. Normal and amblyopic subjects bisected horizontal lines and spaces extending 1, 2, 3 and 15 deg arc monocularly on a computer screen. Results of the two procedures were compared.
Visually normal subjects bisected both lines and spaces without reproducible distortion, within uncertainties approximating 1-3% of their length. No differences were observed between the two procedures. Strabismic amblyopes bisected without constant distortion to either side of the geometrical mean, irrespective of direction or extent of the deviation; their uncertainty at bisecting ranged from 2% to 12%. Again, no distinction between line and space bisection could be made.
We conclude that the two procedures yield comparable results.
分区实验在过去以及最近都被用于评估视力正常和视力障碍个体的空间感知。具体而言，当通过线段或空间平分法进行评估时，弱视患者表现出明显扭曲和/或不确定的空间定位。
本研究关注线段平分法与空间平分法的比较。正常和弱视受试者在电脑屏幕上用单眼将长度为1、2、3和15度弧的水平线段和空间进行平分。对两种方法的结果进行比较。
视力正常的受试者在将线段和空间平分时没有可重复的扭曲，不确定性约为其长度的1 - 3%。两种方法之间未观察到差异。斜视性弱视患者平分时不会持续偏向几何平均数的某一侧，无论偏差的方向或程度如何；他们平分时的不确定性范围为2%至12%。同样，线段平分法和空间平分法之间没有区别。
我们得出结论，这两种方法产生的结果具有可比性。
