Central Visual Field Sensitivity Data from Microperimetry with Spatially Dense Sampling
KeywordPerimetry; Microperimetry; Visual field; Age-related macular degeneration (AMD); Central Visual Field Sensitivity Data
Perimetry; Microperimetry; Visual field; Age-related macular degeneration (AMD); Central visual field; Sensitivity data
Rights© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier, open access, and made available under a Creative Commons license CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractMicroperimetry, also referred to as fundus perimetry or fundus-driven perimetry, enables simultaneous acquisition of visual sensitivity and eye movement data. We present sensitivity data collected from 60 participants with normal vision using gaze-contingent perimetry. A custom designed spatially dense test grid was used to collect data across the visual field within 13° of fixation. These data are supplemental to a study in which we demonstrated a spatial interpolation method that facilitates comparison of acquired data from any set of spatial locations to normative data and thus screening of individuals with both normal and non-foveal fixation (Denniss and Astle, 2016).
CitationAstle AT, Ali A and Denniss J (2016) Central Visual Field Sensitivity Data from Microperimetry with Spatially Dense Sampling. Data in Brief. 9: 673–675.
Link to publisher’s versionhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2016.07.061
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Central Perimetric Sensitivity Estimates are Directly Influenced by the Fixation TargetDenniss, Jonathan; Astle, A.T. (2016-07)Purpose Perimetry is increasingly being used to measure sensitivity at central visual field locations. For many tasks, the central (0°, 0°) location is functionally the most important, however threshold estimates at this location may be affected by masking by the nearby spatial structure of the fixation target. We investigated this effect. Methods First we retrospectively analysed microperimetry (MAIA-2; CenterVue, Padova, Italy) data from 60 healthy subjects, tested on a custom grid with 1° central spacing. We compared sensitivity at (0°, 0°) to the mean sensitivity at the eight adjacent locations. We then prospectively tested 15 further healthy subjects on the same instrument using a cross-shaped test pattern with 1° spacing. Testing was carried out with and without the central fixation target, and sensitivity estimates at (0°, 0°) were compared. We also compared sensitivity at (0°, 0°) to the mean of the adjacent four locations in each condition. Three subjects undertook 10 repeated tests with the fixation target in place to assess within-subject variability of the effect. Results In the retrospective analysis, central sensitivity was median 2.8 dB lower (95% range 0.1–8.8 dB lower, p < 0.0001) than the mean of the adjacent locations. In the prospective study, central sensitivity was median 2.0 dB lower with the fixation target vs without (95% range 0.4–4.7 dB lower, p = 0.0011). With the fixation target in place central sensitivity was median 2.5 dB lower than mean sensitivity of adjacent locations (95% range 0.8–4.2 dB lower, p = 0.0007), whilst without the fixation target there was no difference (mean 0.4 dB lower, S.D. 0.9 dB, p = 0.15). These differences could not be explained by reduced fixation stability. Mean within subject standard deviation in the difference between central and adjacent locations' sensitivity was 1.84 dB for the repeated tests. Conclusions Perimetric sensitivity estimates from the central (0°, 0°) location are, on-average, reduced by 2 to 3 dB, corresponding to a 60–100% increase in stimulus luminance at threshold. This effect can be explained by masking by the nearby fixation target. The considerable within- and between-subject variability in magnitude, and the unknown effects of disease may hamper attempts to compensate threshold estimates for this effect. Clinicians should interpret central perimetric sensitivity estimates with caution, especially in patients with reduced sensitivity due to disease.
Specialized and independent processing of orientation and shape in visual field maps LO1 and LO2Silson, E.H.; McKeefry, Declan J.; Rodgers, J.; Gouws, A.D.; Hymers, M.; Morland, A.B. (2013)We identified human visual field maps, LO1 and LO2, in object-selective lateral occipital cortex. Using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), we assessed the functions of these maps in the perception of orientation and shape. TMS of LO1 disrupted orientation, but not shape, discrimination, whereas TMS of LO2 disrupted shape, but not orientation, discrimination. This double dissociation suggests that specialized and independent processing of different visual attributes occurs in LO1 and LO2.