Monocular Clues in Seven Stereotests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: There have been numerous reports with evidence detailing the presence of non-stereoscopic or “monocular”clues in commonly used stereoacuity tests. The purpose of this study was to quantify the influence of monocularclues in the Titmus, Randot®, Randot® Special Edition, Randot® Preschool, Lang, Lang II, and Frisby stereoacuitytests. Stereoacuity testing is typically performed and/or interpreted by eye care professionals and other health/occupational professionals. Methods: Two separate prospective studies were conducted. The first assessed the monocular responses of 100subjects aged 8 to 67 with normal stereoacuity, and no previous exposure to any of the seven tests administered.The second assessed the monocular responses of 33 subjects aged 8 to 65 with longstanding, manifest, horizontalstrabismus of 20 prism diopters or greater, on the aforementioned stereotests. Results: Monocular clues were found to be present for the normal group on the Titmus (61%), Randot® (6%), Randot®Special Edition (5%), Randot® Preschool (7%), Lang (13%), and Lang II (37%). Monocular clues were found to be presentfor the strabismic group on the Titmus (100%), Randot® (9%), Randot® Special Edition (9%), Randot® Preschool (12%),Lang (3%), and Lang II (27%). There was no monocular identification for either group on the Frisby stereotest, butthere was minimal binocular identification by a subject with manifest strabismus. Conclusion: Monocular clues were present for both the normal and strabismic group on 6 of the 7 stereotestsinvestigated. Based on these findings the authors conclude that caution must be used when interpreting patientresponses on the 7 aforementioned stereotests.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".