Vision DisparityNCT02735278
Are There Different Objective Fixation Disparity Values for Two Different Test Paradigms
An observational study of Vision Disparity, run by University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland.
Trial summary
In optometry, binocular coordination is measured subjectively. The result is subjective fixation disparity. In research different experiments have proven, that subjective and objective fixation disparity are different. A binocular eyetracker has to be calibrated. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 17 to 40 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Vision Disparity
- What is being tested?
- different test paradigms
- How many people
- 24 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- May 2016to Jan 2017
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 17 to 40 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult
Study population: Adults without binocular problems
Who may be able to join
- VA without glasses/contact lenses 0.63
- Accurate accommodation on 57cm
Who cannot join
- Tiredness at day of investigation
- Presbyopia
- Alcohol or drug abuse
- No eye related pathology
- No strabism
- No known epilepsy-attack in family
About this study
Official title: Are There Different Objective Fixation Disparity Values for Two Different Test Paradigms: Similar to Reading Dot Presentation and Text Reading? - How This Phenomenon Can be Explained
In optometry, binocular coordination is measured subjectively. The result is subjective fixation disparity. In research different experiments have proven, that subjective and objective fixation disparity are different. A binocular eyetracker has to be calibrated. There are two well known calibration methods: associated and dissociated calibration. Objective fixation disparity is measured in arcMin. Therefore, the precision of the eyetracker plays a crucial role. Now, the investigators try to compare dissociated calibration with polarized filters and associated calibration under different test paradigms.
- Conditions
- Vision Disparity
- Being tested
- different test paradigms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
different test paradigmsOther
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Fixation disparity in arcMin during a reading and reading related dot paradigm
With an eyetracker fixation disparity will be measured on an objective way. The scale will be arcMin and test paradigm a reading tast and a dot task, similar to reading.
Measured: Through study completion, up to 10 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted12 Apr 2016 (estimated)
- Study startMay 2016
- Primary completionJan 2017
- Study completionJan 2017
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Vision DisparityStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Enrolment
- 24 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Remo Poffa, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02735278
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- T426-0034-2
- Status last verified
- Jan 2017
- First submitted
- 23 Mar 2016
- Last updated
- 12 Jan 2017
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 12 Jan 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Are There Different Objective Fixation Disparity Values for Two Different Test Paradigms: Similar to Reading Dot Presentation and Text Reading? - How This Phenomenon Can be Explained
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02735278
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- T426-0034-2
- Conditions
- Vision Disparity
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 24 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern SwitzerlandUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- May 2016
- Primary completion
- Jan 2017 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jan 2017 (actual)
- First posted
- 12 Apr 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
In optometry, binocular coordination is measured subjectively. The result is subjective fixation disparity. In research different experiments have proven, that subjective and objective fixation disparity are different. A binocular eyetracker has to be calibrated. There are two well known calibration methods: associated and dissociated calibration. Objective fixation disparity is measured in arcMin. Therefore, the precision of the eyetracker plays a crucial role. Now, the investigators try to compare dissociated calibration with polarized filters and associated calibration under different test paradigms.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 17 to 40 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult
- Study population
- Adults without binocular problems
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- VA without glasses/contact lenses 0.63
- Accurate accommodation on 57cm
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Tiredness at day of investigation
- Presbyopia
- Alcohol or drug abuse
- No eye related pathology
- No strabism
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| different test paradigms | Other | – |
Primary outcome
Fixation disparity in arcMin during a reading and reading related dot paradigm
Time frame: Through study completion, up to 10 months
With an eyetracker fixation disparity will be measured on an objective way. The scale will be arcMin and test paradigm a reading tast and a dot task, similar to reading.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 12 Jan 2017.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Vision Disparity
Recruiting
Novel Amblyopia Treatment With Virtual Reality Games
Amblyopia
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Vision Disparity, run by University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 6 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 12 Jan 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Fixation disparity in arcMin during a reading and reading related dot paradigm (time frame: Through study completion, up to 10 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 12 Jan 2017.