Performance of a new, 3D-monitor based random-dot stereotest for children under 4 years of age

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the performance of a new, 3D-monitor based, objective stereotest in children under the age of four. METHODS: Random-dot circles (diameter 10 cm, crossed, disparity of 0.34 degrees) randomly changing their position were presented on an 3D-monitor while eye movements were monitored by infrared photo-oculography. If > or = 3 consecutive stimuli were seen, a positive response was assumed. One hundred thirty-four normal children aged 2 months to 4 years (average 17+/-15.3 months) were examined. RESULTS: Below the age of 12 months, we were not able to obtain a response to the 3D stimulus. For older children the following rates of positive responses were found: 12-18 months 25%, 18-24 months 10%, 24-30 months 16%, 30-36 months 57%, 36-42 months 100%, and 42-48 months 91%. Multiple linear logistic regression showed a significant influence on stimulus recognition of the explanatory variables age (p0.1). CONCLUSIONS: This 3D-monitor based stereotest allows an objective measurement of random-dot stereopsis in younger children. It might open new ways to screen children for visual abnormalities and to study the development of stereovision. However, the current experimental setting does not allow determining random-dot stereopsis in children younger than 12 months

Screening and sampling in studies of binocular vision

Binocular deficits are relatively common within a typical sample of observers. This has implications for research on binocular vision, as a variety of stereo deficits can affect performance. Despite this, there is no agreed standard for testing stereo capabilities in observers and many studies do not report visual abilities at all. Within the stereo literature, failure to report screening and sampling has the potential to undermine the results of otherwise strictly controlled research. We reviewed research articles on binocular vision published in three journals between 2000 and 2008 to illustrate how screening for binocular deficits and sampling of participants is approached. Our results reveal that 44% of the studies do not mention screening for stereo deficits and 91% do not report selection of participants. The percentage of participants excluded from studies that report stereo screening amounts to 3.9% and 0.7% for studies that do not report stereo screening. These low numbers contrast with the exclusion of 17.6% of participants in studies that report screening for binocular deficits as well as selection of participants. We discuss various options for stereo testing and the need for stereo-motion testing with reference to recent research on binocular perception