Comparison of head-mounted perimeter (imo®) and Humphrey Field Analyzer

Comparison of a Novel Head-Mounted Objective Auto-perimetry (Gaze Analyzing Perimeter) and Humphrey Field Analyzer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the agreement between 24-2 visual field (VF) test results obtained using the gaze analyzing perimeter (GAP; Findex) and the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA; Carl Zeiss Meditec).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients underwent HFA 24-2 for suspected or confirmed VF loss and were treated at the Kyoto University Hospital between December 2022 and July 2023.

METHODS

Patients underwent consecutive VF tests on the same eye using HFA and GAP 24-2 tests. Bland-Altman analysis was used to compare GAP and HFA results. Examination points where the sensitivity measured using GAP was ≥ 10 dB higher than that measured using HFA were re-evaluated by referring back to the original gaze data; 2 ophthalmologists assessed whether the gaze moved linearly toward the new test target.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mean deviation (MD) and elapsed time on an individual basis and sensitivity on an examination point basis.

RESULTS

Forty-seven eyes of 47 patients were analyzed. The correlation coefficient of the MD using HFA and GAP was 0.811 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.683-0.891). Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement between HFA and GAP tests. The mean difference (95% limits of agreement) in MD between HFA and GAP results was -0.63 dB (-5.81 to 4.54 dB). Although no statistically significant differences were observed in the elapsed time (P = 0.99), measurements completed within 200 seconds were observed only in the GAP group (11 cases, 23.4%), who had significantly better HFA MD value than others (P = 0.001). On an examination point basis for sensitivity, the correlation coefficient between HFA and GAP was 0.691 (95% limits of agreement, 0.670-0.711). Original gaze data assessment revealed that the gaze moved linearly toward the new test target for 70.2% of the examination points with a sensitivity discrepancy.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that the GAP provides VF assessment outcomes comparable to those of the HFA. The GAP exhibited advantages in terms of testing time, particularly in patients with minimal VF impairment. Furthermore, the GAP records all eye movements, enabling the objective determination of VF abnormalities based on gaze patterns and facilitating easy posthoc verification.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Advanced Visualization Engineering for Vision Disorders: A Clinically Focused Guide to Current Technology and Future Applications

Head-mounted visualization technology, often in the form of virtual, augmented, and mixed reality (VAMR), has revolutionized how visual disorders may be approached clinically. In this manuscript, we review the available literature on VAMR for visual disorders and provide a clinically oriented guide to how VAMR technology has been deployed for visual impairments. The chief areas of clinical investigation with VAMR are divided include (1) vision assessment, (2) vision simulation, and (3) vision rehabilitation. We discuss in-depth the current literature of these areas in VAMR and upcoming/future applications to combat the detrimental impact of visual impairment worldwide.

Online Circular Contrast Perimetry via a Web-Application: Establishing a Normative Database for Central 10-Degree Perimetry

Purpose

To establish a normative database using a central 10-degree grid pattern for the online circular contrast perimetry (OCCP) application.

Participants

Fifty participants with mean age 65 ± 13 years were selected for this study. One eye from each participant that met inclusion criteria was randomly included in the cohort.

Methods

The web-application delivered online 52-loci perimetry in a central 10-degree pattern using circular flickering targets. These targets consist of concentric sinusoidal alternating contrast rings. Users were guided by the application to the correct viewing distance and head position using in-built blind spot localization and webcam monitoring. A spinning golden star was used as the fixation target and patients performed the test in a darkened room following standard automated perimetry (SAP).

Results

The reliability rates and global indices for OCCP were similar to SAP. OCCP mean sensitivity reduced with age at a similar rate to SAP. Mean sensitivity per loci of 10-degree OCCP was greater than SAP by 1.24 log units (95% CI 1.23 to 1.26) and obeyed a physiological hill of vision. Small differences existed in mean sensitivities between OCCP and SAP which increased with increasing spot eccentricity. Mean deviation (MD) displayed good agreement between the two tests.

Conclusion

Central 10-degree online circular contrast perimetry via a computer-based application has comparable perimetric results to standard automated perimetry in a normal cohort.

The Current State of Artificial Intelligence in Neuro-Ophthalmology. A Review

This article presents a summary of recent advances in the development and use of complex systems using artificial intelligence (AI) in neuro-ophthalmology. The aim of the following article is to present the principles of AI and algorithms that are currently being used or are still in the stage of evaluation or validation within the neuro-ophthalmology environment. For the purpose of this text, a literature search was conducted using specific keywords in available scientific databases, cumulatively up to April 2023. The AI systems developed across neuro-ophthalmology mostly achieve high sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. Individual AI systems and algorithms are subsequently selected, simply described and compared in the article. The results of the individual studies differ significantly, depending on the chosen methodology, the set goals, the size of the test, evaluated set, and the evaluated parameters. It has been demonstrated that the evaluation of various diseases will be greatly speeded up with the help of AI and make the diagnosis more efficient in the future, thus showing a high potential to be a useful tool in clinical practice even with a significant increase in the number of patients.

A case of functional visual loss diagnosed through bilateral randomized visual field testing with a trick method

Purpose

To report a case of functional visual loss (FVL) diagnosed through bilateral randomized visual field testing using Imo vifa with a trick method.

Observations

A 27-year-old man complained of visual field abnormality in his left eye after falling from a height of 4 m. The left eye had a best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/16 and a critical flicker frequency (CFF) of 44.5 Hz at the first visit. Commotio retinae was observed in the inferior retina of the left eye, and the pupillary light reflex was normal. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of the head revealed no abnormalities. However, the Goldmann perimeter (GP) showed constriction of visual field in the left eye. Since traumatic optic neuropathy was suspected initially; therefore, two courses of methylprednisolone pulse therapy were administered. However, the BCVA and CFF gradually worsened to 20/200 and 14 Hz, respectively. Nevertheless, his pupillary light reflex was still normal, and GP showed a spiral visual field. Thus, we suspected that this was a case of FVL and performed bilateral randomized visual field testing using Imo vifa in three steps as a trick method. In the first step, we performed the normal method for bilateral randomized visual field testing. In the second and third steps, we explained to the patient that only the right or left eye would be examined on purpose; bilateral randomized visual field testing was then performed. The results of examinations revealed left homonymous hemianopsias and normal and concentric contraction of the visual field in both eyes. These results could not be explained by organic disease, and the patient was diagnosed with FVL.

Conclusions and Importance

Bilateral randomized visual field testing using Imo vifa with a trick method was useful for diagnosing FVL.

Comparison of the TEMPO binocular perimeter and Humphrey field analyzer

This study compared between TEMPO, a new binocular perimeter, with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA). Patients were tested with both TEMPO 24-2 Ambient Interactive Zippy Estimated by Sequential Testing (AIZE)-Rapid and HFA 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA)-Fast in a randomized sequence on the same day. Using a mixed-effects model, visual field (VF) parameters and reliability indices were compared. Retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness was measured using Cirrus optical coherence tomography (OCT), and coefficient of determinations for VF and OCT parameters were calculated and compared using Akaike information criteria. 740 eyes (including 68 healthy, 262 glaucoma suspects, and 410 glaucoma) of 370 participants were evaluated. No significant differences were seen in mean deviation and visual field index between the two perimeters (P > 0.05). A stronger association between VF mean sensitivity (dB or 1/L) and circumpapillary RNFL was found for TEMPO (adjusted R2 = 0.25; Akaike information criteria [AIC] = 5235.5 for dB, and adjusted R2 = 0.29; AIC = 5200.8 for 1/L, respectively) compared to HFA (adjusted R2 = 0.22; AIC = 5263.9 for dB, and adjusted R2 = 0.22; AIC = 5262.7 for 1/L, respectively). Measurement time was faster for TEMPO compared to HFA (261 s vs. 429 s, P < 0.001). Further investigations are needed to assess the long-term monitoring potential of this binocular VF test.

Participant Experience Using Novel Perimetry Tests to Monitor Glaucoma Progression

PRCIS

Participant surveys taken after using tablet-based and smart visual function analyzer (SVFA) perimetry tests suggest that patients may prefer novel perimetry tests over traditional visual field machines.

PURPOSE

Compare patient experience using the IMOvifa SVFA and the tablet-based Melbourne Rapid Fields visual field (VF) tests to the Humphrey Field 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospective observational cohort study on adult participants with diagnoses of glaucoma suspect, ocular hypertension, or glaucoma. Participants attended 2 study visits ~3 months apart. During the first visit, participants were trained to use the 2 novel perimeters, took 1 test on both new devices and the Humphrey Field Analyzer, then were surveyed. Participants received tablets and performed weekly tablet VF tests at home between study visits. At the final study visit, participants re-took the VF tests and completed the same surveys.

RESULTS

Eighty-one participants were surveyed twice. At the baseline survey, participants preferred the SVFA (71.7%) and tablet tests (69.2%) over the Humphrey VF. Most were willing to perform weekly monitoring at home on the SVFA (69.1%) and tablet (75.4%). Participants generally had a "very good" overall experience when testing on the SVFA (71.6%) and tablet (90.1%). At the final visit, fewer participants were willing to test on the tablet daily (23.5% to 9.9%; P = 0.02 for change) and more were willing to test monthly (18.5% to 33.3%; P = 0.03 for change).

CONCLUSION

Users reported a preference for novel VF devices. Overall participant experience using these devices was positive, supporting the feasibility of home monitoring of VFs from an experience perspective.

A new static visual field test algorithm: the Ambient Interactive ZEST (AIZE)

Visual field (VF) test is one of the most vital tests in the diagnosis of glaucoma and to monitor the disease worsening. In the past couple of decades, the standard automated perimetry (SAP) test takes a major role in VF test for glaucoma patients. The SAP has been demanded to finish a test in short time without sacrificing accuracy. In this study, we developed and evaluated the performance of a new perimetric algorithm (ambient interactive zippy estimation by sequential testing (ZEST): AIZE) by computer simulation. AIZE is a modification of the ZEST procedure that utilizes the spatial information (weighted likelihood: WL) of neighboring test locations, which varies from the distance to the tested location, to estimate a visual threshold. Ten glaucomatous and 10 normal empirical visual field (VF) test results were simulated with five error conditions [(3% false positives (FP), 3% false negatives (FN)), (9% FP, 9% FN), (15% FP, 15% FN), (3% FP, 15% FN), (15% FP, 3% FN)]. The total number of test presentations and the root mean square error (RMSE) of the estimated visual sensitivities were compared among AIZE, the non-weighted test (WL = 0) and the fixed-weighted test (WL = 0.33). In both glaucomatous (G) and normal (N) VFs, the fixed-weighted test had the lowest number of test presentations (median G 256, N 139), followed by the AIZE (G 285, N 174) and the non-weighted test (G 303, N 195). The RMSE of the fixed-weighted test was lower (median 1.7 dB) than that of the AIZE (1.9 dB) and the non-weighted test (1.9 dB) for normal VFs, whereas the AIZE had a lower RMSE (3.2 dB) than the fixed-weighted test (4.5 dB) and the non-weighted test (4.0 dB) for glaucomatous VFs. Simulation results showed that AIZE had fewer test presentations than the non-weighted test strategy without affecting the accuracy for glaucomatous VFs. The AIZE is a useful time saving test algorithm in clinical settings.

Test-retest repeatability of the imo binocular random single-eye test and Humphrey monocular test in patients with glaucoma

PURPOSE

To evaluate the reproducibility of the imo binocular random single-eye test (BRSET) and Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) monocular test in patients with glaucoma.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

METHODS

We measured the visual fields (VF) of patients with glaucoma using the BRSET and HFA. All tests were repeated two months later. Mean sensitivity (MS), mean deviation (MD), sensitivity at each test location, and reliability indices were compared between the test days. Wilcoxon signed-rank test, interclass correlation coefficient (ICC), correlation coefficients, and Bland-Altman plots were generated for analysis.

RESULTS

We analyzed the VFs of 46 patients with glaucoma. There were no test-retest differences for MS and MD, and ICCs were > 0.9 for MS and MD in both perimeters. Inter-test correlations for MS and MD were high. The limits of agreement (LoAs) (lower, upper limit) between test days for MS were (- 3.4, 4.0) for BRSET and (-3.3, 3.0) for HFA. The LoA for MD was (- 3.3, 3.8) for BRSET and (- 3.2, 2.9) for HFA. Sensitivity at each testing location was more variable between testing days for BRSET than for HFA. For reliability indices, LoAs between testing days were wider for BRSET than for HFA.

CONCLUSION

The imo BRSET showed similar reproducibility to HFA in MS and MD. However, sensitivity at each test location varied more for BRSET than for HFA. Further studies are needed to verify the reproducibility of the imo BRSET.

Comparison of Perimetric Outcomes from a Tablet Perimeter, Smart Visual Function Analyzer, and Humphrey Field Analyzer

PURPOSE

The tablet-based Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) visual field (VF) test and the IMOvifa Smart Visual Function Analyzer (SVFA) are portable perimeters that may allow for at-home monitoring and more frequent testing. We compared tablet and SVFA results with outputs from the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard program.

DESIGN

Observational cross-sectional study.

SUBJECTS

Adult participants with a diagnosis of glaucoma, suspected glaucoma, or ocular hypertension seen in the Massachusetts Eye and Ear glaucoma clinic were enrolled. All participants were reliable and experienced HFA testers.

METHODS

Participants were tested with the SVFA and HFA. The study staff also trained participants on the MRF tablet with instructions to take weekly tests at home for 3 months. Visual field results from the 3 devices were compared.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), reliability parameters, and point sensitivity.

RESULTS

Overall, 79 participants (133 eyes) with a mean age of 61 ± 13 years (range, 26-79 years) were included; 59% of the participants were female, and the mean HFA MD was -2.7 ± 3.9 dB. The global indices of MD and PSD did not significantly vary between HFA and the 2 novel devices, except that the tablet VF reported a 0.6 dB higher PSD compared with HFA. However, tablet and SVFA sensitivities significantly differed from those of the HFA at 36 and 39 locations, respectively, out of 52 locations. Relative to HFA, the tablet overestimated light sensitivity in the nasal field while underestimating the temporal field. The SVFA generally underestimated light sensitivity, but its results were more similar to HFA results compared with the tablet.

CONCLUSIONS

Although average MD values from the 2 novel devices suggest that they provide similar results to the HFA, point-by-point comparisons highlight notable deviations. Differences in specific point sensitivity values were significant, especially between the tablet and the other 2 devices. These differences may in part be explained by differences in the devices' normative databases as well as how MD is calculated. However, the tablet had substantial differences based on location, indicating that the tablet design itself may be responsible for differences in local sensitivities.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Comparison of the TEMPO Binocular Perimeter and Humphrey Field Analyzer

This study compared between TEMPO, a new binocular perimeter, with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA). Patients were tested with both TEMPO 24 - 2 AIZE-Rapid and HFA 24 - 2 SITA-Fast in a randomized sequence on the same day. Using a mixed-effects model, visual field (VF) parameters and reliability indices were compared. Retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness was measured using Cirrus OCT, and coefficient of determinations for visual field and OCT parameters were calculated and compared using Akaike information criteria. 740 eyes (including 68 healthy, 262 glaucoma suspects, and 410 glaucoma) of 370 participants were evaluated. No significant differences were seen in mean deviation and visual field index between the two perimeters (P > 0.05). A stronger association between VF mean deviation and circumpapillary RNFL was found for TEMPO (adjusted R2 = 0.28; AIC = 5210.9) compared to HFA (adjusted R2 = 0.26; AIC = 5232.0). TEMPO had better reliability indices (fixation loss, false positive, and false negative) compared to HFA (all P < 0.05). Measurement time was faster for TEMPO compared to HFA (261sec vs. 429sec, P < 0.001). Further investigations are needed to assess the long-term monitoring potential of this binocular VF test.

Comparison of Visual Field Test Measurements With a Novel Approach on a Wearable Headset to Standard Automated Perimetry

PRCIS

This study of inter-test comparability of a novel visual field application installed on an augmented-reality portable headset and Humphrey field analyzer Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm (SITA) Standard visual field test demonstrates the excellent correlation of mean deviation (MD) and mean sensitivity (MS).

PURPOSE

To determine the correlation between visual field testing with novel software on a wearable headset versus standard automated perimetry.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with and without visual field defects attributable to glaucoma had visual field testing in one eye of each patient with 2 methods: re:Imagine Strategy (Heru, Inc.) and the Humphrey field analyzer (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc.) SITA Standard 24-2 program. Main outcome measures included MS and MD, which were evaluated by linear regression, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland Altman analysis for assessment of the mean difference and limits of agreement.

RESULTS

Measurements from 89 eyes of 89 patients (18 normal and 71 glaucomas) were compared with both instruments. Linear regression analysis demonstrated an excellent Pearson correlation coefficient of r = 0.94 for MS and r = 0.95 for MD. ICC analysis demonstrated high levels of concordance (ICC = 0.95, P < 0.001 for MS and ICC = 0.94, P < 0.001 for MD). Bland-Altman analysis determined a small mean difference between the two devices (Heru minus Humphrey) of 1.15 dB for MS and 1.06 dB for MD.

CONCLUSIONS

The Heru visual field test correlated well with SITA Standard in a population of normal eyes and eyes with glaucoma.

Effects of Stimulus Luminance, Stimulus Color and Intra-Stimulus Color Contrast on Visual Field Mapping in Neurologically Impaired Adults Using Flicker Pupil Perimetry

Purpose

We improve pupillary responses and diagnostic performance of flicker pupil perimetry through alterations in global and local color contrast and luminance contrast in adult patients suffering from visual field defects due to cerebral visual impairment (CVI).

Methods

Two experiments were conducted on patients with CVI (Experiment 1: 19 subjects, age M and SD 57.9 ± 14.0; Experiment 2: 16 subjects, age M and SD 57.3 ± 14.7) suffering from absolute homonymous visual field (VF) defects. We altered global color contrast (stimuli consisted of white, yellow, cyan and yellow-equiluminant-to-cyan colored wedges) in Experiment 1, and we manipulated luminance and local color contrast with bright and dark yellow and multicolor wedges in a 2-by-2 design in Experiment 2. Stimuli consecutively flickered across 44 stimulus locations within the inner 60 degrees of the VF and were offset to a contrasting (opponency colored) dark background. Pupil perimetry results were compared to standard automated perimetry (SAP) to assess diagnostic accuracy.

Results

A bright stimulus with global color contrast using yellow (p= 0.009) or white (p= 0.006) evoked strongest pupillary responses as opposed to stimuli containing local color contrast and lower brightness. Diagnostic accuracy, however, was similar across global color contrast conditions in Experiment 1 (p= 0.27) and decreased when local color contrast and less luminance contrast was introduced in Experiment 2 (p= 0.02). The bright yellow condition resulted in highest performance (AUC M = 0.85 ± 0.10, Mdn = 0.85).

Conclusion

Pupillary responses and pupil perimetry's diagnostic accuracy both benefit from high luminance contrast and global but not local color contrast.

A Novel Visual Field Screening Program for Glaucoma With a Head-Mounted Perimeter

PRCIS

A novel visual field screening program with a head-mounted perimeter 'imo' could detect glaucoma at all stages in a short time with high accuracy.

PURPOSE

The present study aimed to examine the accuracy and availability of a novel glaucoma visual field screening program using a head-mounted visual perimeter 'imo.'

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

Eyes of 76 non-glaucoma participants and 92 glaucoma patients were examined. All patients underwent visual field tests using the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer (30-2 or 24-2 Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm standard program) and imo (the visual field screening program). We evaluated five visual field screening program indicators: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and testing time. We also evaluated the ability of this visual field screening program to differentiate between glaucoma patients and normal controls using the receiver operating characteristic curves and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves.

RESULTS

The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the visual field screening program were 76%-100%, 91%-100%, 86%-89%, and 79%-100%, respectively. The visual field screening program test time was 46±13 seconds for normal controls and 61±18, 82±21, and 105±16 econds, respectively for mild, moderate, and advanced-stage patients. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.77, 0.97, and 1.0 in the mild, moderate, and advanced stages, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Visual field screening using a head-mounted perimeter 'imo' detected glaucoma at all stages in a short time with high accuracy.

Kinetic Perimetry on Virtual Reality Headset

OBJECTIVE

We present a portable automatic kinetic perimeter based on a virtual reality (VR) headset device as an innovative and alternative solution for the screening of clinical visual fields. We compared the performances of our solution with a gold standard perimeter, validating the test on healthy subjects.

METHODS

The system is composed of an Oculus Quest 2 VR headset with a clicker for participant response feedback. An Android app was designed in Unity to generate moving stimuli along vectors, following a standard Goldmann kinetic perimetry approach. Sensitivity thresholds are obtained by moving centripetally three different targets (V/4e, IV/1e, III/1e) along 24 or 12 vectors from an area of non-seeing to an area of seeing and then transmitted wirelessly to a PC. A Python real-time algorithm processes the incoming kinetic results and displays the hill of vision in a two-dimensional map (isopter). We involved 21 subjects (5 males and 16 females, age range 22-73 years) for a total of 42 eyes tested with our proposed solution, and results were compared with a Humphrey visual field analyzer to test reproducibility and efficacy.

RESULTS

isopters generated with the Oculus headset were in good agreement with those acquired with a commercial device (Pearson's correlation values r > 0.83 for each target).

CONCLUSIONS

we demonstrate the feasibility of VR kinetic perimetry by comparing performances between our system and a clinically used perimeter in healthy subjects.

SIGNIFICANCE

proposed device leads the way for a portable and more accessible visual field test, overcoming challenges in current kinetic perimetry practices.

Virtual Reality Hemifield Measurements for Corrective Surgery Eligibility in Ptosis Patients: A Pilot Clinical Trial

Purpose

We developed an accelerated virtual reality (VR) suprathreshold hemifield perimetry algorithm, the median cut hemifield test (MCHT). This study examines the ability of the MCHT to determine ptosis severity and its reversibility with an artificial improvement by eyelid taping on an HTC Vive Pro Eye VR headset and the Humphrey visual field analyzer (HVFA) to assess the capabilities of emerging technologies in evaluating ptosis.

Methods

In a single visit, the MCHT was administered along with the HVFA 30-2 on ptotic untaped and taped eyelids in a randomized order. The primary end points were a superior field visibility comparison with severity of VF loss and VF improvement after taping for MCHT and HVFA. Secondary end points included evaluating patients' Likert-scaled survey responses on the comfort, speed, and overall experience with both testing modalities.

Results

VR's MCHT superior field degrees visible correlated well for severe category margin to reflex distance (r = 0.78) compared with HVFA's (r = -0.21). The MCHT also demonstrated noninferiority (83.3% agreement; P = 1) against HVFA for detection of 30% or more superior visual field improvement after taping, warranting a corrective surgical intervention. In comparing hemi-VF in untaped eyes, both tests demonstrated relative obstruction to the field when comparing normal controls to severe ptosis (HVFA P < 0.05; MCHT P < 0.001), which proved sufficient to demonstrate percent improvement with taping. The secondary end point of patient satisfaction favored VR vision testing presentation mode in terms of comfort (P < 0.01), speed (P < 0.001), and overall experience (P < 0.01).

Conclusions

This pilot trial supports the use of MCHT for the quantitative measurement of visual field loss owing to ptosis and the reversibility of ptosis that is tested when conducting a presurgical evaluation. We believe the adoption of MCHT testing in oculoplastic clinics could decrease patient burden and accelerate time to corrective treatment.

Translational Relevance

In this study, we look at vision field outputs in patients with ptosis to evaluate its severity and improvement with eyelid taping on a low-profile VR-based technology and compare it with HVFA. Our results demonstrate that alternative, portable technologies such as VR can be used to grade the degree of ptosis and determine whether ptosis surgery could provide a significant superior visual field improvement of 30% or more, all while ensuring a more comfortable experience and faster testing time.

Application and Validation of LUXIE: A Newly Developed Virtual Reality Perimetry Software

PURPOSE

To report the application of LUXIE and validate its reliability by comparing the test results with those of Humphrey Field Analyzer 3 (HFA3).

METHODS

In this pilot study, we prospectively recruited participants who had received HFA3 SITA standard 30-2 perimetry and tested them with LUXIE on the same day. LUXIE is a software designed for visual field testing cooperating with HTC Vive Pro Eye, a head-mounted virtual reality device with an eye-tracking system. The test stimuli were synchronized with eye movements captured by the eye-tracking system to eliminate fixation loss. The global, hemifields, quadrants, glaucoma hemifield test (GHT) sectors, and point-by-point retinal sensitivities were compared between LUXIE and HFA3. All participants were asked to fill out a post-test user survey.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight participants with 65 eyes were enrolled. LUXIE demonstrated good correlations with HFA3 in global (r = 0.81), superior hemifield (r = 0.77), superonasal, superotemporal, and inferonasal quadrants (r = 0.80, 0.78, 0.80). The user survey showed that participants were more satisfied with LUXIE in operating difficulty, comfortability, time perception, concentration, and overall satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

LUXIE demonstrated good correlations with HFA3. Fixation loss could be eliminated in LUXIE with the eye-tracking system. The application of virtual reality devices such as the HTC Vive Pro Eye makes telemedicine and even home-based self-screening visual field tests possible.

KEY MESSAGES

1. Virtual reality perimetry is a developing technology that has the potential in telemedicine, and home self-screening visual field tests. 2. LUXIE demonstrated good correlations with Humphrey Field Analyzer 3 in visual field retinal sensitivities.

Agreement in the detection of chiasmal and postchiasmal visual field defects between imo binocular random single-eye test and Humphrey monocular test

PURPOSE

To compare the ability of imo binocular random single-eye test (BRSET) to detect visual field (VF) defects due to chiasmal and postchiasmal lesions (C/PCLs) with a Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) monocular test.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective multicenter study METHODS: This study enrolled 40 patients with C/PCLs and measured their VFs using both imo BRSET and HFA monocular test. The VFs were classified into three groups using the cluster criterion: 1) bitemporal group, 2) homonymous group, and 3) others. The agreement and correlation of VF results between imo and HFA were analyzed using the Bland-Altman plot and Spearman correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

The VFs of 34 patients were analyzed and classified. There were 13 patients in the bitemporal, 6 in the homonymous, and 15 in the others group. BRSET showed a significantly shorter test duration than HFA. The imo systematically yielded a lower sensitivity than HFA. The average sensitivity at each test location correlated well between the perimeters in all groups, with the correlation coefficients ranging from 0.89 to 0.98. Bland-Altman plots showed wider limits of agreement in the affected quadrants compared to the unaffected quadrants in the bitemporal and homonymous groups. The fixation loss rate did not differ between the perimeters, but there were significant differences in the false positive and false negative rates between perimeters.

CONCLUSION

BRSET detected VF defects due to C/PCLs as accurately as the HFA monocular test with a shorter test duration.

Gaze tracker parameters have little association with visual field metrics of intrasession frontloaded SITA-Faster 24-2 visual field results

PURPOSE

To determine the usefulness of Humphrey Field Analyser (HFA) SITA-Faster 24-2 gaze tracker outputs on interpreting intra-visit visual field (VF) result pairs.

METHODS

Analysis of 1380 right-left eye pairs and 1432 pairs of test 1-test 2 intrasession VF results of patients seen within a university-based glaucoma service was undertaken to understand gaze deviation distributions. Output gaze tracker results were aggregated into total ticks, sum of amplitudes and average amplitudes. Correlations between visual field indices (mean deviation [MD], "events" and overall hill of vision) and independent variables (age and test order) were performed using one eye from each subject.

RESULTS

There was no association of test order (right-left, test 1-test 2) with eye movements. There was a significant, but weak correlation between eye movements and age (r = 0.16). Correlations of eye movements with MD were driven by more severe MD values. There were no significant correlations between intrasession difference in eye movements and the change in MD, number of "events" and hill of vision, or in the root mean square of sensitivity and total deviation values. There was also no significant correlation between gaze tracker outputs and another commonly used "reliability" metric, false positive rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Eye movement parameters as currently reported by the HFA do not appear to be correlated with key sensitivity parameters when considering the repeatability of intrasession SITA-Faster 24-2 VF results. Thus, current gaze tracker outputs do not appear to provide clinically meaningful information for interpretation of intra-visit visual field results that cannot already be garnered using other strategies.

Comparison of imo and Humphrey field analyzer perimeters in glaucomatous eyes

AIM

To compare the imo perimeter, a new portable head-mounted perimeter unit that enables both eyes to be examined quickly and simultaneously, with the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) perimeter to investigate correlations and their diagnostic ability in glaucomatous eyes.

METHODS

The performance of the equipment in 128 glaucomatous eyes and 40 normal eyes were tested. We investigated the correlations of mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, visual field index, and the sensitivity.

RESULTS

Measurements of mean deviation (r=0.886, P<0.001), pattern standard deviation (r=0.814, P<0.001), and visual field index (r=0.871, P<0.001) in both perimeters were strongly and positively correlated. The sensitivities in the imo perimeter were 80.5% for mean deviation, 81.2% for pattern standard deviation, and 80.5% in visual field index; those in the HFA were 63.3% for mean deviation, 74.5% for pattern standard deviation, and 80.5% for visual field index. Both perimeters demonstrated high diagnostic ability.

CONCLUSION

The parameters by the imo and HFA in glaucomatous eyes show strong positive correlations with favorable sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic ability. However, the difference between imo and HFA results increases with the increase in visual field disturbance.

Measures of disease activity in glaucoma

Glaucoma is the leading cause of irreversible blindness globally which significantly affects the quality of life and has a substantial economic impact. Effective detective methods are necessary to identify glaucoma as early as possible. Regular eye examinations are important for detecting the disease early and preventing deterioration of vision and quality of life. Current methods of measuring disease activity are powerful in describing the functional and structural changes in glaucomatous eyes. However, there is still a need for a novel tool to detect glaucoma earlier and more accurately. Tear fluid biomarker analysis and new imaging technology provide novel surrogate endpoints of glaucoma. Artificial intelligence is a post-diagnostic tool that can analyse ophthalmic test results. A detail review of currently used clinical tests in glaucoma include intraocular pressure test, visual field test and optical coherence tomography are presented. The advanced technologies for glaucoma measurement which can identify specific disease characteristics, as well as the mechanism, performance and future perspectives of these devices are highlighted. Applications of AI in diagnosis and prediction in glaucoma are mentioned. With the development in imaging tools, sensor technologies and artificial intelligence, diagnostic evaluation of glaucoma must assess more variables to facilitate earlier diagnosis and management in the future.

Multicenter Comparison of the Toronto Portable Perimeter with the Humphrey Field Analyzer: A Pilot Study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the agreement between glaucomatous 24-2 visual field (VF) testing performed with the Toronto Portable Perimeter (TPP; VEM Medical Technologies) and the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA; Carl Zeiss Meditec).

DESIGN

Multicenter prospective cohort analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with suspected or confirmed glaucoma treated at Prism Eye Institute (Oakville, Canada), York Finch Eye Associates (North York, Canada), or the Ontario Mobile Medical Eye Care Unit (Cochrane, Canada) between March 2019 and March 2020.

METHODS

Patients underwent consecutive VF tests on the same eye using the HFA Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard 24-2 test and TPP Standard 24-2 test in randomized order. Bland-Altman analysis and paired t tests were used to compare VF results obtained by the TPP and the HFA. Participants completed a 5-question validated questionnaire after completing both testing methods.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mean difference and degree of agreement in mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), visual field index (VFI), and test duration between VF modalities.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty eyes from 91 patients were included in analysis. Average MD of the overall cohort using HFA and TPP VF testing was -4.32 ± 5.47 dB and -4.53 ± 5.22 dB, respectively (P = 0.74). Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement between HFA and TPP tests. The mean differences (95% limits of agreement) between HFA and TPP for MD, PSD, VFI, and test duration were 0.21 dB (-4.25 to 4.67 dB), -0.13 dB (-3.72 to 3.47 dB), 0.66% (-10.94% to 12.26%), and 0.65 seconds (-97.51 to 98.81 seconds), respectively. No statistically significant mean difference was found between HFA and TPP tests for MD, PSD, VFI, or test duration. Mean deviation (R² = 0.830) and VFI (R² = 0.866) were correlated strongly with both modalities. Questionnaire results demonstrated that patients significantly preferred the TPP over the HFA for VF testing (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Mean deviation, PSD, and VFI outcomes measured by the TPP were statistically similar to corresponding parameters obtained with the HFA. Test time duration did not differ significantly between the TPP and HFA, and patients significantly preferred the TPP to the HFA examination experience. These pilot results suggest that the TPP may offer an accessible alternative to HFA VF testing.

Advanced Vision Analyzer–Virtual Reality Perimeter

Purpose

To evaluate the Advanced Vision Analyzer (AVA; Elisar Vision Technology) and to compare pointwise threshold sensitivity and functional correlation of Elisar Standard Algorithm (ESA) with the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) of the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc).

Design

Prospective, cross-sectional, observational case series.

Participants

One hundred sixty eyes (85 control participants, 75 glaucoma patients) for functional assessment, 15 eyes for test–retest variability (TRV), 107 eyes for blind spot trial (45 normal eyes, 62 glaucoma eyes) were recruited consecutively. A separate group of participants was chosen for each assessment.

Methods

All participants underwent ESA and SITA Standard 24-2 testing, and 1 eye of each participant was selected randomly. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman, linear regression, mean bias (MB), and proportional bias analyses were quantified and assessed. Threshold measurements, TRV, and blind spot location accuracy were compared with those of the HFA.

Main Outcome Measures

Pointwise threshold sensitivity, sectoral mean sensitivity (MS), mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), TRV, blind spot location, average test time were computed, and data were correlated.

Results

The mean time required to perform a field test with the AVA was 7.08 ± 1.55 minutes and with HFA was 6.26 ± 0.54 minutes (P = 0.228). The MS difference between AVA and HFA was –2.2 ± 2.3 dB in healthy participants (P < 0.001) and –2.6 ± 3.5 dB in participants with glaucoma (P < 0.001). The correlation coefficients for pointwise threshold values were moderately to strongly correlated for both the devices (r = 0.68–0.89). For MS, the overall ICC value was 0.893 (P < 0.001) with MB of 2.48 dB and a limits of agreement (LOA) of 10.90 (range, 7.93 to –2.97). For TRV, response variability decreased with an increase in sensitivity and increased with eccentricity. Blind spot location was accurate, and global indices of testing methods correlated well.

Conclusions

The AVA effectively captures threshold values for each point in the visual field. Adequate functional correlation suggests substantial equivalence between the AVA (ESA) and HFA (SITA Standard), implying that AVA may allow accurate assessment of visual field.

Central Visual Field Sensitivity With and Without Background Light Given to the Nontested Fellow Eye in Glaucoma Patients

PRECIS

This study showed the difference of monocular visual sensitivity between with and without background light given to the nontested fellow eyes in glaucoma patients. Monocular sensitivity measurements of the worse eyes with fellow eye's background light conditions should carefully be considered when assessing the impact of functional impairment in glaucoma patients.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the difference between monocular sensitivities measured with and without background light given to the nontested fellow eye in glaucoma patients using a new perimeter named "imo."

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we examined 102 eyes of 51 patients (mean age, 65.1±14.9 y) with open-angle glaucoma who were affected with at least 1 significant point in the central 10 degrees. We conducted a routine ophthalmic examination and visual field testing using the Humphrey Field Analyzer 24-2 and 10-2 programs. The eyes were assigned to "better" and "worse" categories based on the visual acuity and central visual thresholding. Subsequently, we compared the central visual sensitivities with and without background light given to the nontested fellow eye.

RESULTS

The mean sensitivity (MS) in the central 5 points of the visual field of the worse eyes was better when measured with background light than without background light (P=0.037) given to the nontested fellow eye. No significant difference was seen among the MS in the visual field of the better eyes. After dividing the patients into low (n=25) and high sensitivity (n=26) groups, only the low sensitivity group in worse eyes had higher MS with background light than without background light (P<0.05) given to the nontested fellow eye.

CONCLUSIONS

Monocular sensitivities measured with background light given to the nontested fellow eye were higher than those without background light in the worse eye group of glaucoma patients. Monocular MS measurements of the worse eyes with fellow eye's background light conditions and their related indices should thus carefully be considered when assessing the impact of functional impairment in glaucoma patients.

Glaucoma Home Monitoring Using a Tablet-Based Visual Field Test (Eyecatcher): An Assessment of Accuracy and Adherence Over 6 Months

Purpose

To assess accuracy and adherence of visual field (VF) home monitoring in a pilot sample of patients with glaucoma.

Design

Prospective longitudinal feasibility and reliability study.

Methods

Twenty adults (median 71 years) with an established diagnosis of glaucoma were issued a tablet perimeter (Eyecatcher) and were asked to perform 1 VF home assessment per eye, per month, for 6 months (12 tests total). Before and after home monitoring, 2 VF assessments were performed in clinic using standard automated perimetry (4 tests total, per eye).

Results

All 20 participants could perform monthly home monitoring, though 1 participant stopped after 4 months (adherence: 98% of tests). There was good concordance between VFs measured at home and in the clinic (r = 0.94, P < .001). In 21 of 236 tests (9%), mean deviation deviated by more than ±3 dB from the median. Many of these anomalous tests could be identified by applying machine learning techniques to recordings from the tablets' front-facing camera (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.78). Adding home-monitoring data to 2 standard automated perimetry tests made 6 months apart reduced measurement error (between-test measurement variability) in 97% of eyes, with mean absolute error more than halving in 90% of eyes. Median test duration was 4.5 minutes (quartiles: 3.9-5.2 minutes). Substantial variations in ambient illumination had no observable effect on VF measurements (r = 0.07, P = .320).

Conclusions

Home monitoring of VFs is viable for some patients and may provide clinically useful data.

Uptake, Persistence, and Performance of Weekly Home Monitoring of Visual Field in a Large Cohort of Patients With Glaucoma

PURPOSE

This study examines the short-term uptake, compliance, and performance of a tablet device used for home monitoring of visual field (VF-Home) by glaucoma patients.

DESIGN

Single-center, observational, longitudinal, compliance study.

METHODS

Participants who were glaucoma suspects or had stable glaucoma in at least one eye were recruited during a regular clinic review. Baseline in-clinic visual field (VF) was recorded with the Humphrey Field Analyser (HFA, SITA standard) and repeated at 6 months. Participants were tasked with performing 6 VF examinations from home, at weekly intervals, using a loaned iPad tablet. Uptake was defined as returning at least 1 test from home. Reliability and global indices from VF-Home were compared to in-clinic outcomes. Data are shown as either mean ± [standard deviation] or median [quartile 1-3 range], and group comparisons were achieved with bootstrap.

RESULTS

We recruited 186 eyes of 101 participants. VF-Home uptake was excellent, with 88% of participants successfully completing ≥1 home examination and 69% completing all 6 examinations. The median duration between tests was 7.0 [7.0-8.0] days. Barriers to uptake and compliance involved information technology (IT) logistical reasons, lack of motivation, or competing life demands. VF-Home gave greater fixation loss but a similar level of False Positives (FP) as the HFA. A high correlation was found for the mean defect between in-clinic and at-home outcomes (R = 0.85).

CONCLUSIONS

VF-Home can return a high level of short-term compliance and results comparable to those found by in-clinic testing. IT logistical reasons and lack of motivation are barriers to uptake and compliance.

Comparison of the Performance of a Novel, Smartphone-based, Head-mounted Perimeter (GearVision) With the Humphrey Field Analyzer

PRECIS

The agreement between a head-mounted perimeter [GearVision (GV)] and Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) for total threshold sensitivity was a mean difference of -1.9 dB (95% limits of agreement -5 to 1). GV was the preferred perimeter in 68.2% of participants.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare reliability indices and threshold sensitivities obtained using a novel, smartphone-based, head-mounted perimeter (GV) with the HFA in normal, glaucoma suspect and glaucoma patients. A secondary objective was to evaluate the subjective experience participants had with both perimeters using a questionnaire.

METHODS

In a prospective, cross-sectional study; 107 eyes (34 glaucoma, 18 glaucoma suspect, and 55 normal) of 54 participants underwent HFA and GV in random order. The main outcome measure was the agreement of threshold sensitivities using Bland and Altman analysis. Participants also completed a questionnaire about their experience with the devices.

RESULTS

Median false-positive response rate for GV was 7% (4% to 12%), while for HFA it was 0% (0% to 6%, P<0.001). Median false-negative response rate was similar for both tests. In all, 84 eyes with reliable HFA and GV results were included in the final analysis. Median threshold sensitivity of all 52 points on HFA was 29.1 dB (26.5 to 30.7 dB) and for GV was 30.6 dB (29.1 to 32.6 dB; P<0.001). Mean difference (95% limits of agreement) in total threshold sensitivity between HFA and GV was -1.9 dB (-5 to 1 dB). The 95% limits of agreement were fairly narrow (-8 to 2 dB) across the 6 Garway-Heath sectors. Most participants preferred to perform GV (68.2%) if required to repeat perimetry compared with HFA (20.6%, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There was fairly good agreement between the threshold sensitivities of GV and HFA. GV was also preferred by most patients and could potentially supplement HFA as a portable or home perimeter.

Preliminary Report on a Novel Virtual Reality Perimeter Compared With Standard Automated Perimetry

PRECIS

The VisuALL head-mounted perimetry in normal subjects and glaucoma patients had a moderate to strong correlation with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA).

PURPOSE

Visual field testing has a vital role in diagnosing and managing glaucoma. The current clinical practice relies on large, table-based testing units. This study investigated the performance of a novel virtual reality head-mounted visual perimetry device (VisuALL), in normal and glaucoma patients.

METHODS

This prospective observational study was conducted on 50 eyes of 25 healthy subjects (normal group) and 52 eyes of 26 patients with a controlled mild or moderate stage of glaucoma (glaucoma group). All participants had visual field testing with VisuALL and the HFA (24-2, Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm). The mean sensitivity of the whole visual field and each quadrant were compared between both machines and the receiver operating characteristic was used to compare the diagnostic abilities and the Bland-Altman plot to evaluate the agreement of the 2 perimeters.

RESULTS

The global mean sensitivity of the VisuALL and the HFA correlated significantly in both normal (r=0.5, P=0.001) and glaucoma (r=0.8, P<0.001) groups. The mean sensitivity of all quadrants also correlated significantly in both groups. The VisuALL mean sensitivity had a greater (0.98) receiver operating characteristic curve than HFA (0.93) mean sensitivity (P=0.06) in discriminating normal versus glaucoma.

CONCLUSION

There was an excellent correlation between the VisuALL and the Standard Automated Perimetry in normal and glaucoma patients and VisuALL showing high diagnostic performance.

Age-dependent changes in visual sensitivity induced by moving fixation points in adduction and abduction using imo perimetry

Visual field (VF) testing has usually been performed with the central gaze as a fixed point. Recent publications indicated optic nerve head deformations induced by optic nerve traction force can promote the progression of optic neuropathies, including glaucoma. We generated a new static test protocol that adds 6° adduction and abduction to gaze position (fixation points) movement. The aim of this study was to investigate both whether quantifying VF sensitivities at lateral horizontal gaze positions is feasible and whether horizontal gaze positions change sensitivities differently in subjects of different ages. Healthy adult eyes from 29 younger (≤ 45 years) and 28 elderly (> 45 years) eyes were examined in this cross-sectional study. After VF testing with central gaze as a fixation point using 24 plus (1) imo static perimetry, subjects underwent VF testing with 6° adduction and 6° abduction as fixation points. The average mean sensitivities with central gaze, adduction, and abduction were 29.9 ± 1.0, 29.9 ± 1.3, and 30.0 ± 1.2 decibels (dB) in younger subjects and 27.7 ± 1.2, 27.5 ± 1.7, and 28.1 ± 1.3 dB in elderly subjects, respectively. Visual sensitivity in young healthy subjects was similar among the three fixation points, whereas visual sensitivity in elderly healthy subjects was significantly better with abduction as a fixation point than with central gaze and adduction (both p < 0.05). We expect this test protocol to contribute to our understanding of visual function during horizontal eye gaze movement in various eye diseases.

Comparison of central visual sensitivity between monocular and binocular testing in advanced glaucoma patients using imo perimetry

BACKGROUND/AIM

This study aimed to compare central visual sensitivity under monocular and binocular conditions in patients with glaucoma using the new imo static perimetry.

METHODS

Fifty-one consecutive eyes of 51 patients with open-angle glaucoma who were affected with at least one significant point in the central 10° were examined in this cross-sectional study. Monocular and binocular random single-eye tests were performed using the imo perimeter and the Humphrey field analyser (HFA) 24-2 and 10-2 tests. The eyes were assigned to 'better' and 'worse' categories based on the visual acuity and central visual thresholding. Central visual sensitivity results obtained by monocular, binocular random single-eye tests and binocular simultaneous both eye test were compared.

RESULTS

The average mean deviation with the HFA 24-2 was -5.5 (-1.5, -14.6) dB (median, (IQR)) in the better eyes and -18.0 (-12.9, -23.8) dB in the worse eyes. The mean sensitivity in the central 4 points of the visual field (VF) of the worse eyes was lower when measured under the binocular eye condition than under the monocular condition. Conversely, this value of the better eyes was greater when measured under the binocular eye condition than under the monocular condition.

CONCLUSIONS

The central sensitivity of the better eyes was better and that of the worse eyes poorer with binocular testing than with monocular testing in patients with glaucoma. Although monocular VF testing is still the most straightforward means to monocularly monitor glaucoma at clinical settings, binocular testing, such as provided with imo perimetry, may be a useful clinical tool to predict the effect of VF impairments on a patient's quality of visual life.