초록
목적: 본 연구는 이간계인 하워드-돌먼 입체검사와 삼간계로 성인의 동적 입체시를 측정하여 비교해 보고, PD 및 굴절이상과 동적 입체시의 상관성을 분석해 보았다. 방법: 평균연령 $21.27{\pm}2.32$(19~32)세인 성인 93명(남자50, 여자43)을 대상으로 이간계(two-rods test)와 삼간계(three-rods test)로 검사거리 2.5 m에서 동적 입체시를 각각 5회 측정하였다. 결과: 이간계와 삼간계로 측정한 동적 입체시는 각각 전체 평균 $29.91{\pm}23.03$초, $23.75{\pm}21.65$초 였고, 이중 남자는 $28.36{\pm}22.38$초, $22.28{\pm}23.79$초 여자는 $31.71{\pm}23.91$초, $25.46{\pm}19.00$초로 이간계에 비해 삼간계로 측정한 동적 입체시가 모두 좋았으나 통계적으로 유의한 차이는 없었다(p>0.05). PD 평균 표준편차 범위 60.63 mm~66.19 mm 사이의 동적 입체시는 이간계 $31.48{\pm}24.87$초, 삼간계는 $22.54{\pm}17.22초$로 통계적으로 유의한 차이가 있었으나(p<0.05), 두 검사법의 동적 입체시와 PD의 상관성은 크지 않았다. 굴절이상을 기준으로 할 때도 이간계에 비해 삼간계로 측정한 동적입체시가 모두 더 좋게 나타났으나 통계적으로 유의한 차이는 없었고(p>0.05) 굴절이상과 두 동적 입체시간의 상관성도 거의 없었다. 두 입체시는 일반적으로 정상인의 동적 입체시로 간주하는 30~50초 범위에 해당하는 결과가 나타났다. 결론: 삼간계는 이간계보다 입체시가 더 낮게 나타나 동적 입체시의 더 낮은 최소 역치를 측정할 수 있고, 두 검사법이 성인의 동적 입체시 표준검사법으로 사용되고 동적 입체시의 기준을 적용하는데 유용할 것으로 사료된다. PD와 굴절이상은 동적 입체시에 큰 영향을 주지 않는 것으로 나타났다.
Purpose: On this study, we measured and compared the dynamic stereoacuity by two-rods test (Howard-Dolman Test) and three-rods test. And we analyzed the correlation between PD and refractive error with dynamic stereoacuity. Methods: Dynamic stereoacuity of two-rods test and three-rods test at 2.5 m distance for 93 adults 93 (50 males, 43 females), mean age of $21.27{\pm}2.32$ (19~32) years old, were measured 5 times for two tests. Results: The mean of dynamic stereoacuity measured by two-rods test and three-rods test were $29.91{\pm}23.03sec$ of arc and $23.75{\pm}21.65sec$ of arc for total subjects, respectively. The mean of male and female were $36{\pm}22.38sec$ of arc and $22.28{\pm}23.79$, respectively. Three-rods test showed better dynamic stereoacuity than two-rods test, but there was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05). For the average standard deviation of PD between 60.63 mm~66.19 mm, dynamic stereoacuity fo two-rod test and three-rod test were $31.48{\pm}24.87sec$ of arc and $31.48{\pm}24.87sec$ of arc, respectively. The results showed statistically significant difference (p<0.05), but the relationship between dynamic stereoacuity and PD was not great. Comparison between two tests on the basis of refractive error, dynamic stereoacuity by three-rods test was better than by two-rods test with no significant difference between both tests (p>0.05) and there was little correlation between refractive error and two dynamic stereoacuity. Conclusions: Three-rods test showing lower stereoacuity than two-rods tests could measure the lower minimum threshold of dynamic stereoacuity. It was found that both tests can be applied to dynamic stereoacuity test as a standard test, and PD and refractive error was found that little effect upon the dynamic stereoacuity. PD and refractive error was found that little effect upon the dynamic stereoacuity.
