随机点立体图与图形立体图检测立体视的一致性分析  

Evaluation of the agreement between random dot-based and contour-based Stereoacuity tests

作　　者：范丽英[1] 张芳[2] 候立杰[2] 徐肃仲[2] 

机构地区：[1]中国辽宁省沈阳市第四人民医院眼科,110031 [2]温州医学院附属眼视光医院,中国浙江省温州市325027

出　　处：《国际眼科杂志》2008年第7期1385-1386,共2页International Eye Science

摘　　要：目的：研究随机点立体图与图形立体图检测立体视锐度的一致性,评估偏差仅限于周边立体视或无立体视范围,还是包括黄斑中心凹立体视的整个立体视谱。方法：对4～25岁双眼视正常组76例及共同性斜视组89例,采用TNO及Randot立体图于40cm处检查近距离立体视,比较两种方法测得的立体视锐度的一致性。结果：双眼视正常组两种方法测得的立体视锐度分布无统计学差异;斜视组两种方法检测的立体视锐度分布有显著统计学差异（χ^2=19.27,P〈0.01）,且差异存在于整个立体视谱。结论：随机点及图形立体图检查结果的不一致反应了两类方法的机制不同,图形立体图检查混杂了单眼信息导致的假阳性结果,随机点立体图检查无立体视可能并非大脑皮质立体视觉真正丧失。AIM： To evaluate the agreement between the random dot-based （TNO） test and the contour-based （Randot circles） tests. Stereoacuity derived using two test types was compared to evaluate whether discrepancies between two tests were limited to the coarse/nil end of the stereoacuity spectrum or whether they were apparent across a wider range of possible stereoacuity scores, including levels of stereopsis equated with macular fusion. METHODS： Seventy-six normal subjects and 89 strabismus patients （aged 4-25 years） participated. In each participant, stereoacuity was measured using the TNO Stereoacuity test and the Randot circles. RESULTS： Stereoacuity scores of normal participants using the TNO circles and the Randot circles were not significantly different. Among patients with strabismus, stereoacuity score disagreement was evident across the entire range of measurable stereoacuity（χ^2 =19.27, P〈0.01）. CONCLUSION： Disagreement between the random dotbased test and the circles test may reflect different underlying mechanisms by the different types of tests or confounding non-stereoscopic binocular cues in the circles test. Stereoblind seen in some strabismus patients using the TNO stereotest is probably because of a failure to overcome the dissociative effect of the test on fusion rather than a true loss of stereopsis at cortical level.

关 键 词：立体视锐度 随机点立体图 图形立体图 一致性 

分 类 号：R770.4[医药卫生—眼科]