ライフサイエンスコーパス: stereoacuity

1 tegies to maximize development of high-grade stereoacuity.

2 rt lines) and both also regained significant stereoacuity.

3 of age, presence of amblyopia, and abnormal stereoacuity.

4 ty, contrast sensitivity, visual fields, and stereoacuity.

5 Deferring treatment did not affect final stereoacuity.

6 amblyopia is believed to result in improved stereoacuity.

7 fluenced the maturation of visual acuity and stereoacuity.

8 p with a similar median deviation and median stereoacuity.

9 e, inter-ocular visual acuity difference and stereoacuity.

10 a more accurate/repeatable method to measure stereoacuity.

11 gmus were more likely to have improvement in stereoacuity.

12 c patients and/or those with reduced or null stereoacuity.

13 Fusional stress does not appear to impact on stereoacuity.

14 ntervals of the worse eye's near VA based on stereoacuity.

15 % of participants also showed improvement in stereoacuity.

16 ith unilateral amblyopia, mean IAD, and mean stereoacuity.

17 unilateral amblyopia, larger IAD, and worse stereoacuity.

18 arcsec (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.08) for distance stereoacuity.

19 arcsec (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.09) for distance stereoacuity.

20 ded visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and stereoacuity.

21 imilar improvements in the patching group in stereoacuity (0.40 log arcseconds; P < 0.0001) and binoc

22 erogeneity: Q = 4.8075, p = 0.4398), reduced stereoacuity (0.73 [CI: -1.14, -0.31]) (non-significant

23 n IAD (0.07 vs. 0.05 logMAR), and worse mean stereoacuity (145 vs. 117 arc sec; all P<0.0001).

24 ast acuity (LCA, 2.5% and 1.25%), and Randot stereoacuity 2 months following surgical correction of s

25 lar near VA (20/40 or worse) or reduced near stereoacuity (240 seconds of arc or worse) in 4- and 5-y

26 l visual acuity (20/20 or better) and normal stereoacuity (40s of arc or better).

27 inimum angle of resolution [logMAR] 0.4) and stereoacuity 800 seconds of an arc or better.

28 h an overall significant mean improvement in stereoacuity after training (t((1)(3)) =2.64; P = 0.02).

29 log arcsec (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.06) for near stereoacuity and 0.01 log arcsec (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.08)

30 dence interval [CI], -0.02 to 0.06) for near stereoacuity and 0.04 log arcsec (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.09)

31 ermine the associations between the level of stereoacuity and age, sex, race, glaucoma type, presence

32 spondence between the mVEP response and both stereoacuity and bifoveal fusion in a cohort of strabism

33 Although VA, stereoacuity and binocular rivalry at low spatial freque

34 Gains in stereoacuity and binocular VA were maintained vs baselin

35 Near stereoacuity and BiS for 2.5% and 1.25% LCA were signifi

36 ce in visual functions (P > 0.05) except for stereoacuity and contrast sensitivity between the two gr

37 Stereoacuity and contrast sensitivity were within normal

38 f decorrelated visual experience may improve stereoacuity and decrease fixation instability.

39 ed discordance between the mVEP response and stereoacuity and high concordance between the mVEP respo

40 est improvement in visual acuity, tropia and stereoacuity and may need longer optical treatment perio

41 to evaluate the relationship between Titmus stereoacuity and minimal VA based on a real-world testin

42 high concordance between mVEP responses and stereoacuity and mVEP responses and bifoveal fusion.

43 Abnormal stereoacuity and occlusion therapy pose significant risk

44 We found near stereoacuity and pAE dominance in binocular rivalry in "

45 re accurately predict minimum VA from Titmus stereoacuity and should be used preferentially when eval

46 Secondary outcomes were change in stereoacuity and suppression at the 2-week visit and cha

47 VA deficits and were associated with reduced stereoacuity and suppression, consistent with the hypoth

48 t sensitivity with and without glare, Randot stereoacuity, and 60 degrees Humphrey visual fields.

49 The IXT-ptosis group had worse distance stereoacuity, and a larger proportion of patients had su

50 in outcome measures were visual acuity (VA), stereoacuity, and amblyopia recurrence at 12- and 52-wee

51 ures: prism and alternate cover test (PACT), stereoacuity, and control score (mean of the 3 most rece

52 3 years was uncommon, and exotropia control, stereoacuity, and magnitude of deviation remained stable

53 with increased fixation instability, poorer stereoacuity, and more severe amblyopia.

54 error, binocular eye alignment (strabismus), stereoacuity, and postural stability (imbalance).

55 elated moderately with contrast sensitivity, stereoacuity, and visual fields (Spearman rho = 0.50, 0.

56 sual acuity, contrast and glare sensitivity, stereoacuity, and visual fields are significant independ

57 w luminance, contrast and glare sensitivity, stereoacuity, and visual fields were measured.

58 ce, contrast sensitivity, glare sensitivity, stereoacuity, and visual fields.

59 acuity, contrast sensitivity function (CSF), stereoacuity, and visual functioning and quality of life

60 ants had lower contrast sensitivity, reduced stereoacuity, and worse visual fields, at all ages compa

61 , motor angle deviation at near, fusion, and stereoacuity as recorded on the most recent visit during

62 Stereoacuity assessment, available for 29/40 (72.5%) of

63 6, and 52 wk of age and significantly poorer stereoacuity at 17 wk of age than did infants who were w

64 Better acuity and stereoacuity at 17 wk was correlated with higher concent

65 The objective of this study was to compare stereoacuity at age 3.5 y in healthy, full-term children

66 Stereoacuity at age 3.5 y was assessed.

67 the individual thresholds for psychophysical stereoacuity at the three different pedestal disparities

68 eterioration criteria of distance VA or near stereoacuity below age norms, or development of manifest

69 t be excluded, but the lack of difference in stereoacuity between infants randomly assigned to DHA-co

70 For individual patients, deterioration in stereoacuity beyond previously reported test-retest vari

71 Secondary outcomes included stereoacuity, binocular VA, and treatment adherence rate

72 Random dot stereoacuity, blood lipid profile, growth, and tolerance

73 term monocular conditions (those with normal stereoacuity but occluded) with nil stereoacuity showed

74 6 Delta at distance and near, no decrease in stereoacuity by 0.6 log arcsec or more from baseline, an

75 We demonstrated that Titmus stereoacuity cannot definitively establish normal VA, an

76 ch transferred to psychophysical tests (mean stereoacuity changed from 23 to a ceiling value of 20 ar

77 and psychophysical stereoacuity tests (mean stereoacuity changed from 569 to 296 arc seconds, P < 0.

78 Mean stereoacuity changed from a value of 263.3 +/- 135.1 bef

79 decreased contrast sensitivity and impaired stereoacuity compared to controls.

80 angle of resolution [logMAR] visual acuity, stereoacuity, contrast sensitivity, and forward light sc

81 opters [Delta] at distance and near) or near stereoacuity criterion (>=2-octave decrease from best pr

82 ic assessment (best-corrected visual acuity, stereoacuity, cycloplegic refraction and funduscopy).

83 aneous prism and cover test, and/or (2) near stereoacuity decreased by at least 2 octaves from baseli

84 Patients with stereoacuity demonstrated significantly more BiS in 2.5%

85 during the study, only 1 (<1%) met motor or stereoacuity deterioration criteria at 3 years.

86 d to be the immediately necessary treatment, stereoacuity deterioration or progression to constant ex

87 iorations, 2 met motor deterioration, 11 met stereoacuity deterioration, and 12 started treatment wit

88 Stereoacuity did not differ significantly between childr

89 pth perception, suggesting that the enhanced stereoacuity did not result from reducing the effects of

90 tween improvements in the 2 groups in either stereoacuity (difference, 0; 95% CI, -0.27 to -0.27; P =

91 cuity testing, and therefore measurements of stereoacuity do not need to precede visual acuity measur

92 We gathered normal-viewing Randot stereoacuities for 110 participants (90 neurotypical and

93 led to equal decrements in visual acuity and stereoacuity for the +1.00 and -1.00 DS and the +2.00 an

94 an spectacles, there was no benefit to VA or stereoacuity from 4 or 8 weeks of treatment with the dic

95 Secondary outcomes include stereoacuity, functional vision, cortical visual respons

96 Cost per stereoacuity gain for 12-week treatment duration was $64

97 easures, the performance was best in the nil stereoacuity group and was statistically significant for

98 ad tasks were significantly worse in the nil stereoacuity group when compared with that of the normal

99 group when compared with that of the normal stereoacuity group.

100 Defective stereoacuity (>60 arc second) was noted in 20 subjects (

101 es as initial treatment and who had abnormal stereoacuity had 3.4x (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8

102 anagement; however, the functional impact of stereoacuity has largely been neglected.

103 tly (P = 0.001) greater likelihood of foveal stereoacuity (high-grade or < 100 s/arc) than did formul

104 In this group, stereoacuity improved to a normal level as a result of r

105 Stereoacuity improvement of 0.40 log arcseconds (P < 0.0

106 lar suppression along with visual acuity and stereoacuity improvements.

107 o determine the effect of fusional demand on stereoacuity in individuals with no known binocular visi

108 were associated with increased odds of poor stereoacuity in patients with early-to-moderate glaucoma

109 Stereoacuity in the LCP-supplemented group was significa

110 ifference in the magnitude of improvement in stereoacuity in the mITT and the PP datasets.

111 In clinical settings, stereoacuity is assessed with clinical stereotests.

112 Reduced stereoacuity is commonly found in association with reduc

113 Age-related deterioration in stereoacuity is reflected not only by a linear correlati

114 Chicago, IL] results were used to determine stereoacuity levels).

115 of which test result was used to define the stereoacuity levels.

116 without correction: subnormal distance VA or stereoacuity; manifest strabismus; or strabismus surgery

117 Infant stereoacuity matured from unmeasurable at age 12 weeks t

118 s, improvement occurred in distance and near stereoacuity (mean improvement, 0.14 and 0.14 logarithm

119 uro-ophthalmic examination, including Titmus stereoacuity measurements.

120 tive errors, latent and manifest deviations, stereoacuity, near point of accommodation (NPA), and con

121 tween two stimuli by itself predicts neither stereoacuity nor perceived depth.

122 f monocular near and distance visual acuity, stereoacuity, ocular alignment, motility, pupils, and ex

123 istance or near by SPCT; or decrease in near stereoacuity of >=2 octaves, at any masked examination;

124 = 0.04 for Definitional Vocabulary) or near stereoacuity of 240 seconds of arc or worse (-8.6, P < 0

125 between the groups for the proportions with stereoacuity of 3000 s of arc or worse was 58% (47-69%).

126 cept for refractive correction) IXT and near stereoacuity of 400 seconds of arc or better were enroll

127 The median stereoacuity of the CVFD group was worse than that of th

128 was undertaken to investigate the effect on stereoacuity of treatment for unilateral visual impairme

129 strabismus and 47 controls) with measurable stereoacuity on their initial stereoacuity test were enr

130 ere was no overall deterioration in distance stereoacuity or near stereoacuity thresholds in either t

131 teriorated for subnormal distance VA or near stereoacuity, or manifest strabismus).

132 reduced distance visual acuity (VA), reduced stereoacuity, or manifest strabismus.

133 blyopia) and compared them to psychophysical stereoacuities (our gold standard).

134 Visual acuity (VA) and stereoacuity outcomes were extrapolated from the RCTs fo

135 previous commonly used VA estimates based on stereoacuity overestimated VA.

136 ween BiS for 2.5% LCA with near and distance stereoacuity (P = .006 and P = .009).

137 was also significantly correlated with near stereoacuity (P = .04).

138 .36), binocular eye alignment (P = .90), or stereoacuity (P = .45).

139 unilateral amblyopia, larger IAD, and worse stereoacuity (P<0.001 for trend).

140 control score, fixation preference, or near stereoacuity) (P values >= .20).

141 Age significantly affected stereoacuity performance at recruitment (mean age, 4 yea

142 10 to 30 years with normal, reduced, or nil stereoacuity performed three tasks: Purdue pegboard (mea

143 d to stereoacuity, with subjects with normal stereoacuity performing best on all tests.

144 nd/or anisometropia, and the associated poor stereoacuity probably is the consequence of decorrelated

145 Visual acuity, stereoacuity, refraction, clinical findings of slit-lamp

146 Stereoacuity remained constant into the mid-70s and decl

147 m of neuro-ophthalmic diseases affecting VA, stereoacuity remains associated with VA, but previous co

148 ters than did those without near or distance stereoacuity, respectively.

149 Comparison of stereoacuities showed an immediate median improvement of

150 h normal stereoacuity but occluded) with nil stereoacuity showed that, on all measures, the performan

151 ve percent had functional stereo vision with stereoacuity similar to that of 12 age-matched controls

152 Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and stereoacuity (Stereo Randot graded circle test) changes

153 ntrol score, near PACT, and Randot Preschool stereoacuity (Stereoptical Co, Inc, Chicago, IL) were as

154 Visual acuity (VA), refraction, stereoacuity, strabismus, ocular media, and fundus were

155 Stereoacuity, suppression, eye-hand coordination, and re

156 nil stereoacuity (when the Preschool Randot Stereoacuity Test [Stereo Optical Co, Inc., Chicago, IL]

157 ith measurable stereoacuity on their initial stereoacuity test were enrolled prospectively.

158 ts), and best corrected SA (Randot Preschool Stereoacuity Test) were measured in 4- to 13-year-old To

159 t and 38.75 18.83 seconds of arc with Frisby stereoacuity test.

160 nd the depth perception test using the Langs stereoacuity test.

161 , including monocular visual acuity testing, stereoacuity testing, and cycloplegic refraction.

162 owed transfer to clinical and psychophysical stereoacuity tests (mean stereoacuity changed from 569 t

163 ) were evaluated with both Titmus and Frisby stereoacuity tests to measure depth perception as stereo

164 ugh visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and stereoacuity tests.

165 ths did not demonstrate significantly poorer stereoacuity than those in treatment.

166 The mean stereoacuity threshold in control group was 53.5 23.23 s

167 We also used psychophysics to measure stereoacuity thresholds compared with backgrounds at dif

168 Stereoacuity thresholds do not deteriorate after visual

169 terioration in distance stereoacuity or near stereoacuity thresholds in either the intermittent strab

170 Five patients were found to have improved stereoacuity to 60 arc seconds or better by the end of t

171 c eye, interocular visual acuity difference, stereoacuity, treatment compliance and the amblyopic eye

172 cuity, interocular visual acuity difference, stereoacuity, tropia size at distance and near, age and

173 Additional applications evaluated stereoacuity (two), eyelid position (one), chalazion (on

174 res were change in clinical outcomes (angle, stereoacuity, visual acuity and NCS) in treated and untr

175 Data collected included angle, near stereoacuity, visual acuity, control of X(T) measured wi

176 The median stereoacuity was 60 arc seconds (interquartile range [IQ

177 binocular sensory function study, random-dot stereoacuity was abnormal in 41% of children, whereas an

178 Random dot stereoacuity was assessed in infants with forced-choice

179 Titmus stereoacuity was associated positively with VA: 9 circle

180 Decreased stereoacuity was associated with greater glaucomatous vi

181 domized management regimen if distance VA or stereoacuity was below age norms or manifest strabismus

182 Median near stereoacuity was better in emmetropic than in than hyper

183 Stereoacuity was better in the expedited surgery group,

184 sual acuity, amplitude of accommodation, and stereoacuity was conducted.

185 Variation in stereoacuity was examined in a large group of observers

186 Notably, stereoacuity was increased in dyslexics versus controls

187 Stereoacuity was measured before and immediately after v

188 Stereoacuity was measured by using the random dot E test

189 Random dot stereoacuity was measured in 152 children with a history

190 Stereoacuity was measured using the Titmus stereo test.

191 Stereoacuity was measured with any latent deviation full

192 relationship between binocular summation and stereoacuity was studied by Spearman correlation.

193 ion Here we asked whether the improvement in stereoacuity was the result of a reduced disparity pedes

194 Stereoacuity was transformed to log units for analysis.

195 The change in stereoacuity was used as a surrogate measure of function

196 capable of assessing many discrete levels of stereoacuity, was presented on digital displays attached

197 The microstrabismic subjects' stereoacuities were substantially reduced, but their dis

198 f the minimum angle of resolution VA and log stereoacuity were analyzed.

199 om-dot (Randot; Stereo Optical, Chicago, IL) stereoacuity were assessed at recruitment and at 12- and

200 rge and small bead tasks, those with reduced stereoacuity were better than those with nil stereoacuit

201 ith unilateral amblyopia, mean IAD, and mean stereoacuity were compared between anisometropic and iso

202 r detection thresholds, optotype acuity, and stereoacuity were measured in a group of 19 newly diagno

203 dative response, binocular near VA, and near stereoacuity were measured.

204 functions such as habitual visual acuity and stereoacuity were not affected by drug exposure.

205 Acuity, contrast sensitivity, and stereoacuity were not associated with crashes.

206 Visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and stereoacuity were not associated with falls after adjust

207 The median angle of deviation and median stereoacuity were not significantly different at 6 or 18

208 VA, accommodative response, and stereoacuity were significantly reduced in moderate unco

209 ity, contrast sensitivity, visual field, and stereoacuity were tested by using standard measures.

210 of MFS patients developed a higher grade of stereoacuity when followed for a sufficient interval of

211 stereoacuity were better than those with nil stereoacuity (when the Preschool Randot Stereoacuity Tes

212 before dichoptic treatment had unmeasurable stereoacuity while this only occurred in 2 patients (11.

213 ormance on motor skills tasks was related to stereoacuity, with subjects with normal stereoacuity per

214 9 and 25% of the observers aged 70 to 79 had stereoacuity within the normal range.