The assessment of stereoacuity is an integral part of the ophthalmic assessment, with the responses used to inform clinical management decisions. Stereoacuity impacts on many aspects of life, but there are discrepancies reported where people without measurable stereoacuity report appreciating 3‐D vision. This could be due, in part, to the presentation of the stimuli. A literature review was undertaken to evaluate current assessment techniques, how they relate to patient outcomes, identify the limitations of current tests and discuss how they could be improved. Recent evidence has been collated on currently available tests, used commonly within vision clinics, with normative data provided allowing responses to the tests to be interpreted. The relevance of the results is evaluated in relation to a range of outcomes, where a reduced level of stereopsis has a negative impact on the ability of an individual to perform many tasks, and can lead to an increase in difficulty interacting in the world. Current tests are limited in the aspects of stereoacuity they assess and their ability to precisely measure stereopsis. The world is not static, yet clinical tests are limited to measuring static stereoacuity, even though higher grades of depth perception can be identified in the presence of changing depth. Presentation methods of stereoacuity tests have remained similar over time, with a limited number of disparity levels assessed. New assessment methods are becoming available that include automated staircase testing to present multiple levels of disparity using digital technology. Current clinical tests are limited in their presentation, and are poor at detecting/measuring stereoacuity in those with limited stereopsis. Given the relevance of the stereoacuity measurement to management choices and functional outcomes, new testing methods would be beneficial to fully assess stereoacuity, both static and dynamic.

Dynamic disparity information facilitates the extraction of depth in comparison to static disparity signals. This finding may account for the compelling perception of depth reported in individuals with no measurable static stereoacuity. Our findings challenge the traditional definition of stereoblindness and suggest that current diagnostic tests using static stimuli may be suboptimal. We argue that both static and dynamic stimuli should be employed to fully assess the binocular potential of patients when considering management options.

PurposeTo determine the effect of changing illuminance on visual and stereo acuity.MethodsTwenty-eight subjects aged 21 to 60 years were assessed. Monocular visual acuity (ETDRS) of emmetropic subjects was assessed under 15 different illuminance levels (50–8000 lux), provided by a computer controlled halogen lighting rig. Three levels of myopia (−0.50DS, −1.00DS & 1.50DS) were induced in each subject using lenses and visual acuity (VA) was retested under the same illuminance conditions. Stereoacuity (TNO) was assessed under the same levels of illuminance.ResultsA one log unit change in illuminance level (lx) results in a significant change of 0.060 LogMAR (p < 0.001), an effect that is exacerbated in the presence of induced myopic refractive error (p < 0.001). Stereoacuity scores demonstrate statistically significant overall differences between illuminance levels (p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe findings of this study demonstrate that changes in illuminance have a statistically significant effect on VA that may contribute to test/retest variability. Increases in illuminance from 50 to 500 lx resulted in an improved VA score of 0.12 LogMAR. Differences like these have significant clinical implications, such as false negatives during vision screening and non-detection of VA deterioration, as the full magnitude of any change may be hidden. In research where VA is a primary outcome measure, differences of 0.12 LogMAR or even less could affect the statistical significance and conclusions of a study. It is recommended that VA assessment always be performed between 400 lx and 600 lx, as this limits any effect of illuminance change to 0.012 LogMAR.

Normative values for each stereotest are identified and discussed with respect to other studies. Potential sources of variation between tests, within testing distances, are also discussed.

Aims: To validate the design of updated optotypes to be used in the Kay picture acuity tests to improve the resolution acuity, recognition, repeatability and comparisons with gold standard logMAR acuity assessments. Methods: The study was completed in four phases. In all phases the pictures were presented on a monitor as a single crowded optotype, with five optotypes at each visual acuity (VA) level. Phase one assessed the resolution acuity for 25 pictures, eight Landolt Cs and five ETDRS letters. The recognition phase (phase two) assessed children (18 months to 5 years) to determine which pictures were most commonly identified. During phase three, the resolution acuity of a reduced number of pictures and the Landolt C were reassessed to ensure that fatigue had not influenced the initial results. Phase four compared the new Kay pictures with LEA symbols and the ETDRS (part a), and repeatability of the Kay pictures and the ETDRS chart (part b). Results: Phase one (resolution acuity): 50 adult subjects were tested. The mean (ÔSD) acuity scores achieved using each of the 25 pictures ranged from À0.123 Ô 0.124 to À0.308 Ô 0.105. The mean (ÔSD) acuity for the eight Landolt C orientations was À0.059 Ô 0.120, and À0.128 Ô 0.101 for the ETDRS letters. Following this analysis, three pictures were removed. Phase two (Recognition): 420 children were assessed (54% male) using the remaining 22 pictures. Analysis resulted in the removal of 10 pictures based on the recognition levels. Phase three (resolution acuity): 43 adult subjects were tested with the remaining 12 pictures. The picture selection was reduced to six based on a combination of similar mean bias levels, recognition levels in all children and recognition levels in the youngest children. Phase four (a) (comparability): 113 adult subjects were tested. The mean bias indicated similar results between the tests. The limits of agreement for ETDRS versus Lea symbols were slightly wider than for ETDRS versus Kay pictures. Phase four (b) (repeatability): 100 adult subjects were tested. Paired t-test analysis demonstrated no significant difference between tests in either ETDRS (p = 0.1) or Kay pictures (p = 0.1). Mean bias for both tests was 0.01 logMAR with similar limits of agreement. Conclusion: The newly designed Kay picture optotypes have been shown to be reliably recognised by a paediatric population. In a six-picture test format the newly designed optotypes with single picture presentation and crowding bars have been shown to be a reliable and repeatable VA test in an adult population with good agreement with current gold standard VA assessment methods. Normative data in a paediatric population are now required.