BRADFORD SCHOLARS

    • Sign in
    View Item 
    •   Bradford Scholars
    • Life Sciences
    • Life Sciences Publications
    • View Item
    •   Bradford Scholars
    • Life Sciences
    • Life Sciences Publications
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of Bradford ScholarsCommunitiesAuthorsTitlesSubjectsPublication DateThis CollectionAuthorsTitlesSubjectsPublication Date

    My Account

    Sign in

    HELP

    Bradford Scholars FAQsCopyright Fact SheetPolicies Fact SheetDeposit Terms and ConditionsDigital Preservation Policy

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    Central Perimetric Sensitivity Estimates are Directly Influenced by the Fixation Target

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    Main article (4.340Mb)
    Download
    Publication date
    2016-07
    Author
    Denniss, Jonathan
    Astle, A.T.
    Keyword
    Perimetry; Microperimetry; Visual fields; Central vision loss; Central visual field; Sensitivity
    Rights
    © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Full-text reproduced in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Denniss J and Astle AT (2016) Central Perimetric Sensitivity Estimates are Directly Influenced by the Fixation Target. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics. 36(4): 453-458, which has been published in final form at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/opo.12304. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving
    Peer-Reviewed
    yes
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    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.
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10454/11084
    Version
    Accepted Manuscript
    Citation
    Denniss J and Astle AT (2016) Central Perimetric Sensitivity Estimates are Directly Influenced by the Fixation Target. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics. 36(4): 453-458.
    Link to publisher’s version
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/opo.12304
    Type
    Article
    Collections
    Life Sciences Publications

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2023)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Contact Us
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.