Search

Purpose: To simulate both lens‐induced and screen‐induced aniseikonia, and to assess its influence on stereopsis. Additionally, to determine if screen‐based size differences could neutralise the effects of lens‐induced aniseikonia. Method: A four‐circle (4‐C) paradigm was developed, where one circle appears in front or behind the others because of crossed or uncrossed disparity. This stereotest was used for three investigations: (1) Comparison with the McGill modified random dot stereogram (RDS), with anisometropia introduced with +2 D spheres and cylinders, and with aniseikonia introduced with 6% overall and 6% meridional (×180, ×90) magnifiers before the right eye; (2) Comparison of lens‐induced and screen‐induced 6% overall and meridional magnifications and (3) Determining if lens and screen effects neutralised, by opposing 6% lens‐induced magnification to the right eye with screen‐inducements of either 6% left eye magnification or 6% right eye minification. A pilot study of the effect of masking versus not masking the surround was also conducted. Results: The 4‐C test gave higher stereo‐thresholds than the RDS test by 0.5 ± 0.2 log units across both anisometropic and aniseikonic conditions. However, variations in power, meridian and magnification affected the two tests similarly. The pilot study indicated that surround masking improved neutralisation of screen and lens effects. With masking, lens‐induced and screen‐induced magnifications increased stereo‐thresholds similarly. With lens and screen effects opposed, for most participants stereo‐thresholds returned to baseline for overall and ×180 magnifications, but not for ×90 magnification. Only three of seven participants showed good compensation for ×90 magnification. Conclusions: Effects of lens‐induced aniseikonia on stereopsis cannot always be successfully simulated with a screen‐based method. The ability to neutralise refractive aniseikonia using a computer‐based method, which is the basis of digital clinical measurement, was reasonably successful for overall and ×180 meridional aniseikonia, but not very successful for ×90 aniseikonia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine whether monocularly‐ and binocularly‐induced spherical and meridional blur and aniseikonia had similar effects on stereopsis thresholds. Methods: Twelve participants with normal binocular vision viewed McGill modified random dot stereograms to determine stereoacuities in a four‐alternative forced‐choice procedure. Astigmatism was induced by placing trial lenses in front of the eyes. Twenty‐three conditions were used, consisting of zero (no lens), +1 D and +2 D spheres and cylinders at axes 180, 45 and 90 in front of the right eye, and the following binocular combinations of both lens powers: R × 180/L × 180, R × 45/L × 45, R × 90/L × 90, R sphere/L sphere, R × 180/L × 90, R × 45/L × 135, R × 90/L × 180. Aniseikonia was induced by placing magnifying lenses in front of the eyes. Twenty‐three conditions were used, consisting of zero, 6% and 12% overall magnification and both magnifications at axes 180, 45 and 90 in front of the right eye only, and the following binocular combinations using 3% and 6% lenses: R × 90/L × 90, R × 45/L × 45, R × 180/L × 180, R overall/L overall, R × 90/L × 180, R × 45/L × 135, and R × 180/L × 90. Results: Stereopsis losses for binocular blur effects with parallel axes (non‐anisometropic) were the same as for monocular blur effects of the same axes, and these were strongly dependent on axis (spherical blur and ×90 had the greatest effects). Binocular blur effects with orthogonal axes had greater effects than with parallel axes, with the axis combination of the former having no effect (e.g. R × 90/L × 180 was similar to R × 45/L × 135). For induced aniseikonia, splitting the magnifications between the eyes improved stereopsis slightly, and the effects were not dependent on axis. Conclusion: Binocular blur affects stereopsis similarly to monocular meridional blur if axes in the two eyes are parallel, whereas the effect is greater if the axes are orthogonal. In meridional aniseikonia, splitting magnification between the right and left lenses produces a small improvement in stereopsis that is independent of axis direction and right/left combination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Stereopsis depends on horizontally disparate retinal images but otherwise concordance between eyes. Here we investigate the effect of spherical and meridional simulated anisometropia and aniseikonia on stereopsis thresholds. The aims were to determine effects of meridian, magnitude and the relative effects of the two conditions. Methods: Ten participants with normal binocular vision viewed McGill modified random dot stereograms through synchronised shutter glasses. Stereoacuities were determined using a four‐alternative forced‐choice procedure. To induce anisometropia, trial lenses of varying power and axes were placed in front of right eyes. Seventeen combinations were used: zero (no lens) and both positive and negative, 1 and 2 D powers, at 45, 90 and 180 axes; spherical lenses were also tested. To induce aniseikonia 17 magnification power and axis combinations were used. This included zero (no lens), and 3%, 6%, 9% and 12% at axes 45, 90 and 180; overall magnifications were also tested. Results: For induced anisometropia, stereopsis loss increased as cylindrical axis rotated from 180° to 90°, at which the loss was similar to that for spherical blur. For example, for 2 D meridional anisometropia threshold increased from 1.53 log sec arc (i.e. 34 sec arc) for x 180 to 1.89 log sec arc (78 sec arc) for x 90. Anisometropia induced with either positive or negative lenses had similar detrimental effects on stereopsis. Unlike anisometropia, the stereopsis loss with induced meridional aniseikonia was not affected by axis and was about 64% of that for overall aniseikonia of the same amount. Approximately, each 1 D of induced anisometropia had the same effect on threshold as did each 6% of induced aniseikonia. Conclusion: The axes of meridional anisometropia but not aniseikonia affected stereopsis. This suggests differences in the way that monocular blur (anisometropia) and interocular shape differences (aniseikonia) are processed during the production of stereopsis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]