Twenty-four of 26 Lang I–positive children had positive responses (sensitivity of 92.3%), 29 of 30 Lang I–negative children had negative three-dimensional (3D) stimulus responses (specificity, 96.7%). The results with the new test were compared with the ability to recognize the Lang I random-dot stereotest. ![]() ![]() If two or more consecutive saccades ends corresponded to the stimulus coordinates, a positive response was assumed. While the position of the stimulus randomly changed among four possible locations, eye positions were recorded by infrared photo-oculography. Random-dot circles (diameter 10 cm, crossed disparity of 0.34°) were generated on an autostereoscopic display and presented to 18 normal children (mean age, 5.1 ± 1.1 years), 8 with anisometropic amblyopia (mean age, 4.9 ± 1.3 years), 14 with infantile essential esotropia (mean age, 5.3 ± 0.7 years), and 16 with primary microstrabismus (mean age, 5.2 ± 1.4 years). For this reason, a new, natural method for random-dot stereopsis measurement was developed and tested. Drawbacks of such methods are the alteration of natural visual conditions and sometimes nonacceptance of the glasses. Objective testing for random-dot stereovision in preverbal children requires some type of dissociating glasses. 15 independent RDS frames popping out with equal intervals, (in Practice 1, RDS frame are static).Īfter presenting, subject reponses on plane depth order are collected.ĭraw all elements composed of each RDS frame.Purpose. Load parameters in sequence to generate each trial Ī fixation cross with hint on left and right side.Ĭall ""anaglyph_3D_trial.m" to draw elements on screen. Save and randomly generate parameters for each experiments Process all practice and experiments in sequence.įor each session, call functions including: No dot is generatedn in r and R 1 radium range. > Dot size, ring size, cross size, cross-to-disk distance are halved in central vision trials disparity is doubled in peripheral vision trials. > Dot size, ring size, cross size, cross-to-disk distance, disparity distance are halved in central vision trials. To test if vision field affect length perception If correctness in Practice 1-3 all higher than 90%, then subject can start to Practice 4 and all formal Experiments. Correlation: Full-Correlated + Half-Correlated + Anti-Correlated.This is to help subjects familiar with the experiments, but also the validation of subjects' response. Subject fix the gaze to certain area so that frames will fall into either central or peripheral receptive field.Ĭorrelation: properties of dots which contrast (black or white) are the same both in left vision image or right vision image. (3) peripheral / central vision field different performance on: size, acuration, linear DesignĪll parameters and trial settings are consistent to design in Zhaoping and Ackermann (2018) study. (3) peripheral / central vision depth performance ![]() (2) anti-correlation form vision depth linear ![]() After the stimuli, subjects will response if they detect depth between inner plane and outer plane, and the depth order of two planes. All those RDS frames share the same disparity and correlation properties, so the continuing stimuli will form a stable vision depth if detectable. Those RDS frames all consist of one inner and one outer planes, only dots within inner plane shows disparity and specific correlation. Then, 15 independent dynamic RDS frames are presented with equal displaying intervals. In each trial, subject will focus to fixation cross, so that RDS frames displayed later will either reflect to one' central or peripheral vision field. The experiment is to test stereoscopic depth detection in central and peripheral vision field, and stereoscopic depth is formed by 2 properties between left and right vision image The experiment is produced with Psychtoolbox-3. Instead of using mirror stereoscope, screen is designed into 3D anaglyph, and subjects are asked to wear red-blue glass through the experiments. The project is to reproduce "dynamic RDSs stereopsis experiment" based on the study of Zhaoping and Ackermann (2018).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |