Central Visual Field Sensitivity Data from Microperimetry with Spatially Dense Sampling
| dc.contributor.author | Astle, A.T. | * |
| dc.contributor.author | Ali, I. | * |
| dc.contributor.author | Denniss, Jonathan | * |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-01-10T11:53:25Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-01-10T11:53:25Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2016-12 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Astle AT, Ali A and Denniss J (2016) Central Visual Field Sensitivity Data from Microperimetry with Spatially Dense Sampling. Data in Brief. 9: 673–675. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10454/11083 | |
| dc.description | yes | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | Microperimetry, 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)[1]. | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.relation.isreferencedby | http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2016.07.061 | en_US |
| dc.rights | © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier, open access, and made available under a Creative Commons license CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. | en_US |
| dc.subject | Perimetry; Microperimetry; Visual field; Age-related macular degeneration (AMD); Central Visual Field Sensitivity Data | en_US |
| dc.subject | Perimetry; Microperimetry; Visual field; Age-related macular degeneration (AMD); Central visual field; Sensitivity data | en_US |
| dc.title | Central Visual Field Sensitivity Data from Microperimetry with Spatially Dense Sampling | en_US |
| dc.status.refereed | yes | en_US |
| dc.date.Accepted | 2016-07-29 | |
| dc.date.application | 2016-08-04 | |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |
| dc.type.version | Published version | en_US |
| refterms.dateFOA | 2018-07-25T15:55:34Z |
Item file(s)
Name:
centralVisualFieldSensitivityD ...
Size:
384.7Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Main article
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Patients' views of visual field testing and priorities for research development and translation into practiceThere is limited information regarding the views of patients, as healthcare consumers, on visual field testing, and no information regarding their preferences for future test developments. This study aimed to increase knowledge of patients' subjective experience of visual field assessment and to explore their opinions and priorities regarding current active areas of research and development. Online questionnaire with purposive sampling design. Adults who regularly perform visual field tests in Australia who report having glaucoma or being at risk of glaucoma. An anonymous survey, implemented using the Qualtrics webtool, with both closed and open ended questions designed to explore opinions regarding visual field testing, visit attendance for perimetry, as well as priorities for developments. The survey assessed three domains: 1) opinions regarding visual field test duration and visit frequency; 2) subjective experience; and 3) perspectives on future developments for perimetry. 152 complete survey responses were obtained. The median (IQR) age of participants was 66 (60-72) years. Most participants (70%) had experience of performing more than 11 visual field tests. Participants recalled that they completed visual field tests in median of 6 minutes (IQR: 5-8 minutes) and were willing to accept additional time (median: 5, IQR: 3-6 minutes) to obtain more information. Participants were prepared to increase both the number of visual field tests per eye and the frequency of visual field tests (median: 3, IQR: 2-4 visits per year), in order to gain more information about their visual status. Regarding future developments, the most preferred option was "similar test times but an increase in the level of information about my visual field", which ranked significantly higher than all other options including "shorter test times that maintain the currently available level of information about my visual field." Our study confirms, in a different population and healthcare system, previous research reporting patient perspectives on visual field assessment. We further reveal that healthcare consumers show a strong preference for accurate information about their vision and report being prepared to undergo longer visual field tests or more visual field tests to achieve that outcome.
-
Central Perimetric Sensitivity Estimates are Directly Influenced by the Fixation TargetPurpose 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.
