[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.211.148.181. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
August 1986

Random Dot E Stereogram-Reply

Author Affiliations

Columbus, Ohio

Arch Ophthalmol. 1986;104(8):1114. doi:10.1001/archopht.1986.01050200020010
Abstract

In Reply.  —Dr Campos refers to two articles well worth the reader's investment of time. Our study was conducted on a population of 483 schoolchildren, not on patients with known vision problems such as the significant aniseikonia to which Campos and Enoch make reference.1 Vision screenings may be easily modified to identify individuals with a history of significant intervention such as unilateral lens removal. Indeed, as Blum et al point out, children with vision problems change more and require more frequent visual attention than those without vision problems.2 One could argue for use of the modified clinical technique on those individuals (ø = +.91).It is somewhat unclear from reading the article by Campos and Enoch precisely to what threshold of disparity or visual angle on random dot stereograms (RDS) they refer. In the article by Cooper and Feldman,3 use of an RDS was modified for projection with

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×