DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Comparasion of the Dynamic Stereoacuity with Two-Rods Test and Three-Rods Test

이간계와 삼간계를 이용한 동적 입체시의 비교

  • 심현석 (광주보건대학교 안경광학과) ;
  • 김상문 (광주보건대학교 안경광학과) ;
  • 김상현 (광주보건대학교 안경광학과) ;
  • 김영청 (광주보건대학교 안경광학과)
  • Received : 2015.08.13
  • Accepted : 2015.09.14
  • Published : 2015.09.30

Abstract

Purpose: On this study, we measured and compared the dynamic stereoacuity by two-rods test (Howard-Dolman Test) and three-rods test. And we analyzed the correlation between PD and refractive error with dynamic stereoacuity. Methods: Dynamic stereoacuity of two-rods test and three-rods test at 2.5 m distance for 93 adults 93 (50 males, 43 females), mean age of $21.27{\pm}2.32$ (19~32) years old, were measured 5 times for two tests. Results: The mean of dynamic stereoacuity measured by two-rods test and three-rods test were $29.91{\pm}23.03sec$ of arc and $23.75{\pm}21.65sec$ of arc for total subjects, respectively. The mean of male and female were $36{\pm}22.38sec$ of arc and $22.28{\pm}23.79$, respectively. Three-rods test showed better dynamic stereoacuity than two-rods test, but there was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05). For the average standard deviation of PD between 60.63 mm~66.19 mm, dynamic stereoacuity fo two-rod test and three-rod test were $31.48{\pm}24.87sec$ of arc and $31.48{\pm}24.87sec$ of arc, respectively. The results showed statistically significant difference (p<0.05), but the relationship between dynamic stereoacuity and PD was not great. Comparison between two tests on the basis of refractive error, dynamic stereoacuity by three-rods test was better than by two-rods test with no significant difference between both tests (p>0.05) and there was little correlation between refractive error and two dynamic stereoacuity. Conclusions: Three-rods test showing lower stereoacuity than two-rods tests could measure the lower minimum threshold of dynamic stereoacuity. It was found that both tests can be applied to dynamic stereoacuity test as a standard test, and PD and refractive error was found that little effect upon the dynamic stereoacuity. PD and refractive error was found that little effect upon the dynamic stereoacuity.

목적: 본 연구는 이간계인 하워드-돌먼 입체검사와 삼간계로 성인의 동적 입체시를 측정하여 비교해 보고, PD 및 굴절이상과 동적 입체시의 상관성을 분석해 보았다. 방법: 평균연령 $21.27{\pm}2.32$(19~32)세인 성인 93명(남자50, 여자43)을 대상으로 이간계(two-rods test)와 삼간계(three-rods test)로 검사거리 2.5 m에서 동적 입체시를 각각 5회 측정하였다. 결과: 이간계와 삼간계로 측정한 동적 입체시는 각각 전체 평균 $29.91{\pm}23.03$초, $23.75{\pm}21.65$초 였고, 이중 남자는 $28.36{\pm}22.38$초, $22.28{\pm}23.79$초 여자는 $31.71{\pm}23.91$초, $25.46{\pm}19.00$초로 이간계에 비해 삼간계로 측정한 동적 입체시가 모두 좋았으나 통계적으로 유의한 차이는 없었다(p>0.05). PD 평균 표준편차 범위 60.63 mm~66.19 mm 사이의 동적 입체시는 이간계 $31.48{\pm}24.87$초, 삼간계는 $22.54{\pm}17.22초$로 통계적으로 유의한 차이가 있었으나(p<0.05), 두 검사법의 동적 입체시와 PD의 상관성은 크지 않았다. 굴절이상을 기준으로 할 때도 이간계에 비해 삼간계로 측정한 동적입체시가 모두 더 좋게 나타났으나 통계적으로 유의한 차이는 없었고(p>0.05) 굴절이상과 두 동적 입체시간의 상관성도 거의 없었다. 두 입체시는 일반적으로 정상인의 동적 입체시로 간주하는 30~50초 범위에 해당하는 결과가 나타났다. 결론: 삼간계는 이간계보다 입체시가 더 낮게 나타나 동적 입체시의 더 낮은 최소 역치를 측정할 수 있고, 두 검사법이 성인의 동적 입체시 표준검사법으로 사용되고 동적 입체시의 기준을 적용하는데 유용할 것으로 사료된다. PD와 굴절이상은 동적 입체시에 큰 영향을 주지 않는 것으로 나타났다.

Keywords

References

  1. Von Noorden GK. Binocular vision and ocular motility, 5th Ed. St. Louis: Mosby, 1996;8-40.
  2. Wong BP, Woods RL, Peli E. Stereoacuity at distance and near. Optom Vis Sci. 2002;79(12):771-778. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-200212000-00009
  3. Marsh WR, Rawlings SC, Mumma JV. Evaluation of clinical stereoacuity tests. Ophthalmology. 1980;87(12):1265-1272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(80)35096-3
  4. Min BM, Park WC. The relationship between visual acuity and titmus stereoacuity. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1987;28(6):1339-1342.
  5. Tyler CW. A stereoscopic view of visual processing streams. Vision Res. 1990;30(11):1877-1895. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(90)90165-H
  6. Hart WM. Adler's physiology of the eye, 9th Ed. St. Louis: Mosby, 1992;773-810.
  7. Laby DM, Kirschen DG. Dynamic stereoacuity; Preliminary results and normative data for new test for the quantitative measurement of motion in depth. Binocular Vis & Eye Mus Surg. 1995;10(3):191-200.
  8. Lim KH, Hong HJ. Dynamic stereoacuity in normal individuals. J korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2000;41(11):2408-2414.
  9. Lee MA, Oh JM, Jung JH. Dynamic visual acuity and dynamic stereoacuity of athletes and nonathletes. J Korean Ophthalmic Opt Soc. 2009;14(3):43-49.
  10. Shim HS, Choi SM, Kim YC. Assessment of dynamic stereoacuity of adults in their 20s' with Howard-Dolman test. J Korean Ophthalmic Opt Soc. 2015;20(1):61-66. https://doi.org/10.14479/jkoos.2015.20.1.61
  11. Kim YC. Shim HS, Kim SH. The comparative assessment of the KVA and dynamic stereoacuity. J Korean Ophthalmic Opt Soc. 2014;19(4):519-525. https://doi.org/10.14479/jkoos.2014.19.4.519
  12. Matsuo T, Negayama R, Sakata H, Hasebe K. Correlation between depth perception by three-rods test and stereoacuity by distance randot stereotest. Strabismus. 2014;22(3):133-137. https://doi.org/10.3109/09273972.2014.939766
  13. Borish, Irvin M. Borish's clinical refraction, 2nd Ed. Elsevier, 2006;921-922.
  14. Howard HJ. A Test for the Judgment of Distance. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1919;17:195-235.
  15. Jin YH. Strabismology, 1st Ed. Ulsan: UUP, 1999;72,174-176.
  16. Lee MA, Oh JM, Jung JH. The effects of sports vision training on baseball player's visual performance and baseball records. J Korean Ophthalmic Opt Soc. 2010;15(1):87-97.
  17. Campos EC, Enoch JM. Amount of aniseikonia compatible with fine binocular vision: some old and new concepts. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1980;17(1):44-47.
  18. Lovasik JV, Szymkiw M. Effects of aniseikonia, anisometropia, accommodation, retinal illuminance, and pupil size on stereopsis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1985;26(5):741-750.
  19. Kham KT, Lee YH. The effect of inter-pupillary distance on stereopsis. Korean J. Cognitive Science. 2003;14(3):37-49.
  20. Colenbrander MC. The limits of stereoscopis vision. Ophthalmologica. 1948;115(6):363-366.

Cited by

  1. Comparison of Dynamic Stereoacuity According to Dominant Eye and Degree of Dominant Eye vol.21, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14479/jkoos.2016.21.3.227
  2. Changes of Dynamic Stereoacuity Depending on Distance between Rods and Rod Thickness in Three Rods Test vol.21, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14479/jkoos.2016.21.3.253
  3. Comparison of Dynamic Stereoacuity According to Monocular Cue vol.22, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.14479/jkoos.2017.22.2.127
  4. The Effects of Uncorrected Astigmatism on Dynamic Stereoacuity vol.22, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.14479/jkoos.2017.22.2.143
  5. Comparison of Dynamic Stereoacuity in Terms of Test Distance vol.23, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14479/jkoos.2018.23.4.423
  6. Comparison between Stereopsis Measured in a Natural Space and that Measured Using an Apparatus vol.24, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14479/jkoos.2019.24.1.71