January 2006
Volume 47, Issue 1
Free
Visual Psychophysics and Physiological Optics  |   January 2006
Reliability and Consistency of Dark-Adapted Psychophysical Measures in Advanced Eye Disease
Author Affiliations
  • Ava K. Kiser
    From the Lions Vision Center, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
  • Derek Mladenovich
    From the Lions Vision Center, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
  • Fariba Eshraghi
    From the Lions Vision Center, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
  • Debra Bourdeau
    From the Lions Vision Center, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
  • Gislin Dagnelie
    From the Lions Vision Center, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science January 2006, Vol.47, 444-452. doi:10.1167/iovs.04-1146
  • Views
  • PDF
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Ava K. Kiser, Derek Mladenovich, Fariba Eshraghi, Debra Bourdeau, Gislin Dagnelie; Reliability and Consistency of Dark-Adapted Psychophysical Measures in Advanced Eye Disease. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47(1):444-452. doi: 10.1167/iovs.04-1146.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

purpose. To establish reliable vision measures allowing functional monitoring in patients with severe vision loss.

methods. Legally blind and normally sighted subjects were enrolled in a repeated-measures study to determine the reproducibility of psychophysical vision measures under scotopic conditions. The tests included dark adaptometry, dark-adapted, full-field flash testing, and dark-adapted macular thresholds, obtained by using a perimeter with 500- and 650-nm targets. Two to five test repetitions were performed on the better eye of each subject at monthly intervals. Subject groups included retinitis pigmentosa (RP; n = 33), macular disease (MD; n = 14), optic nerve disease (ON; n = 4), diabetic retinopathy (DR; n = 5), and other retinal diseases (OR; n = 9), and normally sighted control (CTL; n = 12).

results. Dark adaptometry timing yielded mean coefficients of variation for subjects across all groups that averaged approximately 20% throughout the test. For dark-adapted perimetry, the coefficients of repeatability (CR.95) were <7 dB (CTL), <8 dB (OR), <6 dB (ON and RP), and <15 dB (MD). Full-field flash test CR.95 by group varied from 5 to 15 dB, and most low-vision groups performed more reliably than CTL subjects.

conclusions. Dark-adapted psychophysical tests can provide reproducible vision measures in subjects with severe visual impairments, and these tests would be useful in monitoring outcomes in future clinical trials to reverse, halt, or slow vision loss. The most valuable measure of remaining vision was the dark-adapted, full-field flash test, as it produced repeatable results at all levels of vision loss and for all disease states included in this study.

Attempts to arrest, slow, prevent, or reverse blinding eye diseases are expanding in nature and number. Some of the more mainstream approaches involve nutritional supplementation, 1 pharmacological treatments, 2 3 4 gene therapy, 1 5 6 7 8 macular translocation surgery, 9 retinal prosthetic implants, 10 11 photodynamic therapy for choroidal neovascularization, 12 and stem 1 13 or fetal cell transplantation. 14 Given the possible high-risk nature of some therapies, subjects with advanced vision loss are likely to be enrolled in the early phase of clinical trials. In conventional vision tests, subjects with very low levels of vision may demonstrate little to no functional response to these interventions. To compare visual outcomes across therapies and centers, a new and uniform test battery is needed to determine functional vision changes in subjects receiving such treatments. These vision tests must accommodate subjects with visual acuities well below 20/200, small islands of remaining functional retina, and limited ability to fixate and track (even bright) targets. We report on three global or local measures under dark-adapted conditions, which were used to analyze retinal integrity, including rod versus cone function. These measures were collected as part of a project in which we sought to design and validate such a vision test battery. Results from other tests in this same population are presented elsewhere. 15  
Previous studies have evaluated the repeatability of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity measures in both normally sighted 16 17 18 19 20 21 and visually impaired 22 individuals, but to our knowledge there have been no reports evaluating the reliability of dark-adapted psychophysical measures. It has been commonly accepted in clinical practice that patients with very low levels of vision produce results that are more variable than those with normal vision, and this was indeed confirmed in a group of legally blind subjects during a parallel study of measures of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. 15 Nonetheless, these subjects were capable of producing reliable vision measures, and it therefore seems worthwhile to study test reliability in other areas of vision, such as dark-adapted psychophysics. Given the increasing prevalence of adventitious severe vision loss, the determination of repeatability of psychophysical vision measures in legally blind subjects and the availability of a standardized test protocol may be of great help in any future intervention trials for a wide range of ocular diseases. 
Methods
The protocol for the study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and followed the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from the subjects after explanation of the nature and possible consequences of the study. 
Subjects
The results presented in this study were obtained from the better eye in 77 subjects (40 women and 37 men). The better eye was determined based on the results of Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) visual acuity (Lighthouse International, New York, NY) and Pelli-Robson letter contrast sensitivity (Metropia, Ltd., Essex, UK) testing. 15 All subjects with low vision were legally blind, defined by either best corrected visual acuity <20/200 or visual field diameter <20°. The subjects were divided into 10 different groups, defined on the basis of the type of eye disease and severity of vision loss. Subjects were grouped by the following diagnoses: optic neuropathy (ON), diabetic retinopathy (DR), retinitis pigmentosa (RP), macular degeneration (MD; including Stargardt dystrophy and exudative or nonexudative age-related macular degeneration), and other retinopathies (OR). Table 1gives the number of eyes and subjects tested in each group, including assignments to subgroups on the basis of visual acuity. RP-IV subjects could not read any letters on the ETDRS chart at 0.5 m, and their acuity level would be judged as “hand motions” or “light perception” by most clinicians. The causes of ON include toxic, traumatic, and Leber’s congenital ON. The “other retinal disease” (OR) group included one subject each with one of the following diagnoses: albinism, sickle cell retinopathy, retinal detachments, congenital aniridia, pathologic myopia, cone–rod dystrophy, microphthalmia, and retinopathy of prematurity and two subjects with uveitic sarcoid. Subjects were recruited with the premise that their condition was likely to remain stable throughout the 4- to 5-month period of their participation. Possible significant changes in the subjects’ visual condition were monitored at each visit according to subjective histories, visual acuity measurements if possible, and overall performance on tests. If appropriate, a consultation with a low-vision ophthalmologist and/or retina specialist was obtained to verify any change in the subject’s retinal or ocular status. 
Most of the normally sighted control (CTL) subjects were a low-vision subject’s companion. All had presenting VA of 20/25 or better and exhibited no apparent ocular disease, based on both self-reports and ocular examination. CTL subjects’ ages ranged from 22 to 74, with a mean of 50 years. Subjects in all other groups with ocular disease were between 20 and 90 years of age, with a mean of 61 years. 
Subjects were recruited through a database of previous research subjects of the Lions Low Vision Center, through the local Foundation Fighting Blindness affiliate, and from referrals by the Low Vision Clinic of the Wilmer Eye Institute at Johns Hopkins. Some subject groups consisted of fewer members than planned, because, for certain disease types, mobility limitations and coexisting medical problems prevented a disproportionate number of otherwise qualifying visually impaired patients from accepting our invitation to participate in this study. 
Study Design
Low-vision subjects were tested during four or five visits, each lasting between 5 and 8 hours. CTL subjects presented for three visits, with durations of 4 to 5 hours each, at approximately 1-month intervals. CTL subjects performed the same tests as the low-vision subjects, but performed most tests quicker. This schedule allowed for each vision test to be repeated two to five times across visits. ETDRS visual acuity in standard and dark illumination; Pelli-Robson letter contrast sensitivity in regular, dark, and glare illuminations, and electrophysiological tests were also performed during these visits. Results of these tests are reported elsewhere. 15 The set order of the tests that were performed at each visit was visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, pattern visual evoked potentials (VEPs), visual field testing, dark adaptometry, dark-adapted perimetry (Humphrey; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA), dark-adapted full-field flash testing, full-field flash ERGs, and full-field flicker VEPs. The dark-adapted tests were performed after an hour-long lunch break, and subjects were given regular breaks between tests, as deemed necessary by the subject or tester, to minimize the effects of fatigue. A single examiner performed most test procedures across subjects and visits. When there was to be a change of testers, two testers (the original and the new one) would work with the subjects simultaneously for several weeks, to ensure that all procedures were executed in exactly the same manner at each visit across all subjects. Subjects were offered a modest payment for their participation, as well as lunch, parking validation, and a limited reimbursement of travel expenses. 
Test Procedures
After light-adapted testing, subjects’ eyes were dilated with 1% tropicamide and 2.5% phenylephrine hydrochloride ophthalmic solutions, and the subjects were given a break of at least 15 minutes before dark-adaptation testing. This test was performed on the subject’s better seeing eye only, while the other eye was covered with a black patch. A standardized procedure using a scotopic sensitivity test (scotopic sensitivity tester model SST-1; LKC Technologies, Gaithersburg, MD) was used to measure the dark adaptation curve by recording the time needed to perceive lights of decreasing intensity. First, the subject was light adapted in the SST monocular Ganzfeld with moderate intensity (1000 cd/m2) for 60 seconds. The subject was then required to detect a faint probe light in a two-alternative, forced-choice procedure, in which the tester randomly pushed one button on the hand-held device that did not display the probe light and another that did, and repeated these two choices continuously every 5 to 10 seconds. The SST presents a full-field green LED (peak wavelength = 572 nm) as the stimulus, flashed for half a second. The maximum intensity of the probe light is 0.0045 cd/m2, and it can be attenuated over a range of 30 dB (3 log units). On repeated correct detection, the intensity of this light was decreased in 1-dB steps (if necessary, during the rapid initial adaptation phase, 2-dB steps were used). If the subject could not detect the probe light or if an incorrect answer was given, the two-alternative forced choices continued at the same intensity level. The test was continued until the dimmest light sensitivity provided by the sensitivity tester was seen, or for a maximum of 45 minutes, if this sensitivity was not attained. 
Immediately after dark adaptation was completed, subjects performed dark-adapted static macular perimetry spanning a central 6° square, in the better-seeing eye only. The test was performed on an automated perimeter (model VFA 640, Humphrey Instruments; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA), customized for dark-adapted testing. 23 This test, requiring approximately 10 minutes per wavelength, was performed twice, using size-V stimuli: Once with 500-nm wavelength test stimuli (blue-green), followed by 650-nm wavelength stimuli (red), allowing for determination of rod versus cone thresholds, respectively. Three threshold attenuation levels (maximum 50 dB) were obtained for each of the 16 test spot locations, arranged in a 4 × 4 square with 2° spacing. 
After macular perimetry, with the subject still dark adapted, a full-field flash threshold test was completed. The equipment for this test included the ERG Ganzfeld (UTAS-Epic2000; LKC) with a photograph strobe (model PS22; Grass Telefactor, West Warwick, RI) and computer-controlled neutral density filters, spanning a 48-dB range in 2-dB steps. Starting at the dimmest intensity level, a modified two-alternative, forced-choice procedure was used with single flashes presented at random intervals of 1 to 4 seconds. One of the two flashes was always presented at maximum attenuation, whereas the other flash was used to determine threshold. The modification was made to achieve rapid initial convergence to the threshold. The probe flash was presented with increasing intensity, until the subject consistently reported seeing the correct flash, maintained correct identification through four or more consecutive attenuation steps, and then made an error, prompting a 4-dB increase completing the initial cycle. The second cycle required four consecutive correct responses in two attenuation steps before an error prompting a single-step increase completing the second cycle. This initiated a five-cycle three-up/one-down procedure. Figure 1shows a log of the test, with the flash intensity, the subject’s response, and reversal numbers according to the modified staircase procedure. The final threshold was estimated by fitting all a subject’s data with a Weibull function, and the final intensity threshold reported was the 82% correct inflection point of this function. In case the subject detected flashes in both intervals at the maximum (48 dB) attenuation, a pair of welder’s goggles with two types of filters (#6; Schott Glas, Mainz, Germany; and 1 ND Kodak Wratten; Eastman Corp., Rochester, NY) was provided to diminish the intensity reaching the retina by a factor of 2500 (34 dB), and 34 dB was added to the final threshold. Although this test was performed on each eye individually, we are reporting results in the better eye only. The duration of this test procedure was approximately 10 minutes per eye. 
Data Analysis
As suggested by Bland and Altman, 24 we used a coefficient of repeatability (CR.95), calculated as 1.96 multiplied by the SD of the differences between test and retest data for the dark-adapted Humphrey and dark-adapted flash test results, computed individually for each subject using all test-retest combinations: n · (N − 1)/2 values for n test repetitions. CR.95 represents the one-sided test–retest confidence interval and specifies the range around the baseline threshold, outside of which a variable must fall on repeat testing in order for the change to be regarded as significant—that is, not attributable to chance. Exceeding CR.95 represents a high degree of confidence that an individual’s visual function has changed. The CR.95 is an appropriate measure to characterize test–retest reliability across a population, even if there are only one test and retest per subject. 
The use of multiple test repetitions per subject in this study allows for establishment of an individual mean and 95% confidence interval (CI.95), defined as 1.96 times the SD of the subject’s test measures. For a large number of samples from a Gaussian distribution one can easily prove that the expected absolute difference between two samples equals √2 times the SD; hence CR.95 = √2 × CI.95. We will use CI.95 in particular for analysis of dark-adapted Humphrey macular perimetry data. Note that in this test each threshold measure is repeated three times within a session, and so there also is an opportunity to compare within- and between-session reliabilities. 
For dark-adaptometry timing, the coefficient of variation (CoV)—that is, the ratio of the SD to the mean of detection time across multiple visits expressed as a percentage—was calculated at each intensity level within each subject. 
Results
Dark Adaptometry
The dark-adaptation curve was measurable in all CTL, MD-I, RP-I, DR, ON, and OR subjects. The resultant curves can be seen in Figure 2 . Cone and rod branches cannot be easily distinguished in these curves, due to insufficient bleaching by the adapting light, but both were present in the curves of the MD-I, MD-II, ON, and OR group members. In comparison with the curves of CTL and ON subjects, most RP, MD, DR, and OR subjects exhibited a delay of the entire curve. This was most evident in the MD-II, advanced DR, and RP subjects. None of the subjects in the RP-IV group could see the maximum flash intensity, whereas just 4 of 11 RP-II, and 4 of 13 RP-III eyes tested had measurable dark-adaptation levels with the SST. The RP group members all had mild to severe loss of cone sensitivity, with apparently little to no functional rod vision. Most of the curves for RP subjects show delayed or slowed responses between 30 to 22 dB. Exceptions to this were the thresholds for one RP-III subject, one RP-II subject, three RP-I subjects, and the subject with choroideremia (assigned to the RP-I group). These subjects demonstrated some functional, but delayed and limited, adaptation to levels lower than 20 dB, in addition to a slowed initial response. None of the RP subjects tested was able to detect levels below 10 dB after 45 minutes of testing. 
Figure 3Ashows the within-subject CoV across visits for dark-adaptometry timing at each intensity level, averaged by group. Generally, the mean CoV in low vision groups fell below 25% at all dB levels, whereas control subjects exhibited slightly higher values during the early part of the test. Some subjects exhibited good reliability throughout, and others showed fluctuation at various intensity levels between visits. Most subject groups averaged ∼ 20% CoV throughout the test across visits. CTL subjects had the highest overall variation for cone-based dark adaptation, along with decreasing variability (down to 11% CoV) noted over time with decreasing scotopic intensity levels. For the MD, ON, DR, and OR groups, the CoV showed less dependence on test intensity. The OR group members had the least timing variability at the lowest intensities, as did those subjects with RP who were able to see test flashes below 22 dB. 
Dark-Adapted Humphrey Perimetry
Figure 4shows how many eyes were able to complete the dark-adapted Humphrey macular perimetry test. Those subjects who were unable to perform this test could not adequately see the red fixation LED. Among the subjects with RP who could perform the test, the sensitivity and/or extent of the central visual field was limited, so that zero values were obtained at certain test target locations. We excluded the results from some of the RP-II and RP-III subjects, and all the RP-IV subjects, who exhibited results that were not consistent within tests and across visits, because they appeared likely to be affected by inherent floor effects, and returned many zero-threshold values. The histogram in Figure 4shows mean sensitivity levels per group, across test locations, visits, and subjects, for 500 and 650 nm and the log sensitivity ratio (which equals the difference in 500- and 650-nm dB levels.) The findings for the RP-IV, DR, and MD-II groups are not reported in Figure 4 , as only two subjects in each of these groups were able to perform the test, a number considered too low to allow generalization of the results. 
As indicated under Methods, each of the 16 points in the dark-adapted Humphrey test grid yields three thresholds per session. Therefore, the initial variability analysis for this test was based on means and standard deviations. Two measures of between-visit variability, expressed as CI.95, are depicted by the asymmetric error bars in Figure 4 : The first assessment computed the variability at each individual point tested, averaging those measures across points and subjects to give the upward error bars. The second assessment calculated the variability of the average sensitivity across all 16 test locations; this variability was then averaged across subjects to give the downward error bars. As expected, the downward error bars are smaller than the upward ones for all subject groups at 500 and 650 nm and for the difference scores. CTL subjects showed less variability than other groups, with the possible exception of the RP-I group. Variability after averaging across points is 0.5 to 0.75 times the variability by point, whereas a theoretical improvement to 0.25 times might be expected (n = 16, improvement as square root). Thus, much of the test–retest variability is correlated among test points. 
To obtain a single measure of test–retest variability, we calculated CR.95 from differences in the mean threshold across all points at each visit. The results for each group at 500 and 650 nm, as well as for the 500/650 sensitivity ratio, are depicted by the upward bars in Figure 5 . The values are expected to be √2 times the downward error bars in Figure 4 , and the actual ratio scatters around this value. Note that CR.95 can vary between wavelengths, even within groups. The low 500-nm variabilities for the RP-II and RP-III groups may be related to low sensitivity, as shown in Figure 4 , but this explanation does not hold for the ON group. 
Three threshold attenuation levels (maximum 50 dB) were obtained for each of the 16 test spot locations, allowing us to determine within-session reliability, shown by the downward bars in Figure 5 . CR.95 within sessions ranged between 1 to 3.5 dB for 500 and 650 nm across all subject groups, and was most repeatable in subjects with good visual acuity, namely CTL, RP-I, and RP-II. In general, within-session variability was lower than between-session variability, as would be expected, and particularly so in groups with high between-session variability (e.g., MD-I). 
Dark-Adapted Full-Field Flash Test
Test measures were obtainable for the dark-adapted full-field flash test for all but two of our 77 subjects, and vision was not the limiting factor in these two subjects, who were also unable to understand the dark-adaptometry test directions because of confusion and an obvious language barrier. The mean flash threshold for each subject group is shown in Figure 6 . Although advanced RP subjects maintain retinal functioning in only a very small central island, the mean threshold levels that were attainable for the RP-II/III/IV groups are substantial, meaningful scores. The error bars in Figure 6indicate the repeatability for the full-field flash test, and all groups (mean CR.95 < ±14.7 dB) exhibited similar or lower variability than CTL subjects (CR.95 = ±12.5 dB). The ON, MD-I, MD-II, RP-I, RP-II, and RP-III groups demonstrated the most reliable results, with mean CR.95 < ±7.5 dB. Meaningful and reliable (CR.95 = ±12.3 dB) results were also obtained for all RP-IV group members, most of whom had limited or no responses to other tests. The mean threshold for the DR subject group was the most variable. 
Consistency among Dark-Adapted Measures
One would expect to find a close relationship between dark-adapted thresholds obtained with the dark-adapted flash test, minimum Humphrey threshold (500 nm for most subjects, but 650 nm for some patients with RP) and dark-adaptometry end values (except for those subjects whose dark adaptation exceeds the range of the SST). If all three measures truly detect absolute threshold sensitivity, then the regression lines in pair-wise scatterplots should have unit slope. To verify this, scatterplots in Figures 7 and 8were created mapping the dark-adapted flash test thresholds, against dark adaptometry end values and dark-adapted minimum perimetric mean thresholds, respectively. 
The mutual regression slope for the dark-adapted, full-field flash thresholds versus dark-adaptometry end values is 2.60. Similarly, the slope of the mutual regression line for dark-adapted full-field flash thresholds versus dark-adapted Humphrey thresholds is −1.42. Note that neither of these lines comes close to unit slope. The slope in Figure 8is not significantly different from −1 (P = 0.13). In contrast, the slope in Figure 7differs significantly from 1 (P = 0.001) and may confirm that the limited response range of the SST tends to cause ceiling effects, which limits the thresholds compared with those of the full-field flash test. When the slope for the regression line in Figure 8is forced to 1, the y-intercept is −35.6, indicating that the flash tests has a 3.5-log unit brightness margin over the perimeter test, allowing testing of subjects with substantially lower remaining light perception than even the most severely impaired subjects in this study. This has been previously put to good use in a pilot study of retinal cell transplantation. 25  
The linear correlation coefficient for the scatterplot in Figure 7is low (r = 0.37). In Figure 8it appears that the MD-I subjects are outliers, and we therefore calculated correlation coefficients (r) that did (r = −0.60) and did not (r = −0.84; m = −1.31) include the MD-I subjects. This analysis confirms our hypothesis that a strong linear relationship exists between the dark-adapted flash test and dark-adapted Humphrey perimetry thresholds, whereas the relationship with dark adaptometry end values is limited by the range of the SST. In contrast, as can be seen from the MD-I subjects in Figure 8 , a more complex relationship exists for tests with localized targets: dark-adapted Humphrey perimetry requires good fixation stability, and reduced macular sensitivities can be caused by a combination of sensitivity loss and increased variability caused by fixation instability. 
In all three tests, variability appears to depend on subjects’ eye disease. However, different subject groups also have different sensitivities, so one could hypothesize that CR.95 increases with decreasing sensitivity (i.e., increasing threshold). To investigate this, the scatterplots in Figures 9 and 10show the relationship of CR.95 versus mean dark-adapted, full-field flash and Humphrey thresholds, respectively. The 0.04 slope in Figure 10is not significantly different from 0 (P = 0.59). The slope of −0.04 for the regression line in Figure 9 , on the other hand, is significantly different from 0 (P = 0.002), suggesting that the subjects with the highest variability are those with the highest sensitivity. This may be attributable to intermittent light leakage around the goggles worn by subjects with high dark-adapted sensitivity. We removed any data where leakage from the mask was indisputably obvious, but were conservative in removing outliers. The goggles attenuate 2500×, so any leakage is likely to be far in excess of the light transmitted by the goggles. Therefore, such leakage was immediately obvious from the data for subjects whose thresholds were in the 48- to 72-dB range, due to the excessive changes noted during the test session. Only for subjects whose thresholds are in excess of 72 dB would fluctuations be 10 dB or less, and thus go unnoticed until they were suspected in the analysis. Note that none of those highly sensitive subjects is included in Figures 7to 9 . It is important to note that both regression lines contradict the commonly held belief that reduced sensitivity in psychophysical tests is associated with greater between-sessions variability. 
We calculated the ratios of the CI.95 and CR.95 for dark-adapted Humphrey perimetry by computing each subject’s own ratio, and calculating the mean ratio of all study participants within a group and for all subjects, shown in Table 2 . These calculations were intended to minimize the effect of inhomogeneity of various disease subtypes, due to different remaining levels of retinal function within each group. The mean ratios at 500 and 650 nm for all subjects are larger than √2, predicted by theory, whereas more than half of the ratios computed by subject group fall below this value. These variations are presumably due to a non-Gaussian distribution of the data. 
Reliability of Individual Eyes
The eyes of a low-vision subject may have different levels of visual function, dependent on the type and course of the ocular disease. For this study, the mean values for the better eye versus the worse eye for the full-field flash test (r = 0.96), in addition to visual acuity (ETDRS; r = 0.83) and contrast sensitivity (Pelli-Robson; r = 0.88), correlated highly. For normally sighted individuals, it is generally thought that the eyes are not independent with respect to reliability, and that for this reason data from only one eye should be evaluated. No careful analysis of this issue in subjects with severe vision loss due to retinal degeneration can be found in the literature. To compare the reliability between eyes of visually impaired individuals, each subject’s mean test–retest SD of the better eye versus that of the worse eye was plotted. Low correlation coefficients were obtained for the full-field flash test (r = 0.28), as well as for visual acuity (r = 0.013) and contrast sensitivity (r = 0.42). 26  
Similar to the findings in Figures 9 and 10 , there was no significant difference between CR.95 for better and worse eyes. The ON and RP-IV groups had the largest differences of approximately 2 dB between the mean CR.95 for the better and worse eyes, with the worse eyes performing more reliably, indicating that less vision does not necessarily mean that the test results will be more variable. All our data suggest, therefore, that the level of variability (noise) is independent of the retinal function level. 
A second set of results for the dark-adapted flash test was obtained from six subjects among the original 77, who completed the study requirements and then volunteered to repeat the test battery for all test sessions 1 to 2 years later. We created a scatterplot of the CR.95 for the first series versus those for the second series (performed 1 to 2 years later) for each eye from the six subjects who had more than one test–retest (n = 10) and computed the linear regression of this scatterplot. The CR.95 on test and retest correlated highly (r = 0.82). The slope of the regression line (m = 1.11) indicated that the variability was similar between the sessions performed several years apart. Thus, while the reliability between a subject’s eyes did not correlate well, the reliability within eyes appeared to be stable over the course of a few years. 
Discussion
In the past, the standard for dark adaptation has long been the Goldmann-Weekers dark adaptometer (Haag-Streit, Köniz, Switzerland); however, this instrument is no longer manufactured. More recently, lightweight, portable, relatively inexpensive, LED-based dark adaptometers have become commercially available, such as on used in this study (SST-1; LKC Technologies). One study determined the sensitivity of this unit compared with that of the Goldmann-Weekers, for detecting changes in night vision in patients with hereditary retinal degeneration and loss of rod function. Linear regression analysis, discrepancy analysis, and receiver operator characteristic curves for both devices show that the SST-1 quantifies psychophysical rod function nearly as well as the Goldmann-Weekers, though with some limitations. 27  
The major limitation of the current SST-1 unit is its narrow (3.0 log unit) range of intensities, at its maximum too dim to evaluate some subjects in the RP-II/III groups or any RP-IV, who had severe scotopic sensitivity losses (floor effect), and at its minimum too bright to evaluate thresholds in subjects with good scotopic sensitivity (ceiling effect). The potential to obtain meaningful results with such a compact instrument for all subjects exists, as the SST-1 could be modified to test a wider range of intensities. Another aspect of the SST-1 that could be improved is the initial adapting light that currently does not produce adequate photopigment bleaching. By increasing the intensity or duration of the adapting light, one could distinguish better between the rod and cone branches in the dark-adaptation curve and obtain a rod–cone plateau, as typically seen in well-bleached, normally sighted eyes at approximately 22 dB on the SST-1 scale. 
In its present form, dark adaptometry with the SST-1 entails a tedious process that requires a well-trained operator. Although the timing variability during dark adaptometry testing for all subject groups was relatively good, averaging approximately 20% CoV throughout the test, this could probably be reduced by building in an automated test procedure, helping to improve uniformity and repeatability by reducing variability caused by examiner technique or speed. Such a procedure should include automatic recording of the thresholds—instead of the current procedure, which requires manual scoring on paper with the aid of a red penlight—and a continuous staircase procedure for determining running adaptation thresholds and the final dark-adapted, full-field threshold. 
To determine whether variations during dark adaptometry were dependent on and proportional to the timing, we plotted the log of the mean CoV against the log of the mean timing values, shown in Figure 3B . Note that a slope of −1 would be expected for log(CoV) against log(time) if the standard deviation of the timing were independent of the mean, whereas a slope of 0 would indicate strict proportionality of SD and mean. We determined that the linear regression slope (m = −0.23), although significantly less than zero, was much closer to zero than to −1. This indicates that the standard deviations obtained during dark adaptometry increase almost in proportion with mean timing values, and therefore it is appropriate to use the CoV for dark adaptometry, since it is a relative measure, as opposed to the CR.95
In a literature search of PubMed and similar sources, we found no studies of repeatability and reliability involving the dark-adapted tests that we used. In this study, beside minor variations between diagnostic groups, just two findings stand out that suggest improvements to the test method: During dark-adapted Humphrey perimetry, between-session variability was approximately twice that within sessions, and subject groups with poor fixation (i.e., MD-I and OR), had higher average between-sessions variability than did other groups. Improvements to the current dark-adapted Humphrey test apparatus, including infrared eye tracking and automated eye position feedback to the stimulus location, are design changes that are possible to implement and would allow this measurement to yield more accurate results. 
During dark-adapted Humphrey perimetry, all subjects with no RP exhibited significantly greater rod-based (500 nm) than cone-based (650 nm) sensitivities, as would be expected in anyone with functional rod vision. Most with RP, however, demonstrated a lower sensitivity with 500-nm than with 650-nm targets, indicating cone-mediation of short wavelength thresholds (i.e., no measurable rod function). Yet, in both the RP-I and RP-III groups, two of the five subjects tested had higher sensitivities at 500 nm (i.e., measurable rod function). In the RP-III group, the three remaining subjects with lower mean sensitivities at 500 nm had many test points with 0 dB threshold, and their responses were inadequate to be included in the analysis; thus, the higher mean sensitivity at 500 nm than at 650 nm for this group is not representative of advanced RP patients in general. In contrast, such a dichotomy of results for patients with RP confirms previous reports that dark-adapted Humphrey perimetry is a valuable tool for the differentiation of subtypes of RP, with and without remaining rod function. 28  
Correlation can be demonstrated between dark-adapted Humphrey measures at 500 and 650 nm. Variability measures for the ratio of the 500 and 650 nm thresholds were computed to determine whether the sensitivities to the two test wavelengths vary independently between visits. According to the equation for the variance of the difference scores, one expects to find SD500 2 + SD650 2 = SDDiff 2 (SD = standard deviation), if the variabilities at the two test wavelengths are independent. However, the error bars in Figure 4are no larger for the difference score than for the 500- and 650-nm scores, except for the CTL group. This is also seen for the CR.95 values, as the 500/650 ratios are smaller than the orthogonal vector sum of CR.95 values at 500 and 650 nm. Therefore, at least in subjects with advanced vision loss, the hypothesis of independent sensitivity fluctuations at the two wavelengths is rejected in favor of a positive correlation, both for point-by-point scores and for the mean threshold values. 
During the dark-adapted, full-field flash test, the test flashes are presented in a Ganzfeld; therefore, the ability to maintain steady, central fixation is not an essential factor for this measure. This is an important feature of this test, as many low-vision patients have lost function in part(s) of their central visual field, and this aspect of the test may allow for more reliable results. Another positive aspect of this test is the wide range of available flash intensities, especially with the added filter, and a range that extends to much brighter stimuli than the Humphrey and SST-1. A disadvantage of the current filter is occasional light leakage around the mask, but this could certainly be improved if a similar test is produced commercially. 
The mean thresholds that are attainable with the dark-adapted, full-field flash test reflect a summation of function across the entire retina. Threshold values for the ON and MD-I subject groups are only slightly less than those for CTL subjects, as these subject groups typically retain functional rod vision over a substantial portion of the retina. Advanced DR and OR conditions typically affect function throughout large retinal areas, including the macula, posterior pole, and mid- or far-peripheral regions. Therefore, as expected, these subjects tend to have lower full-field flash sensitivities than ON and MD-I subjects, but greater than the RP subject groups. Among the RP subject groups, the RP-I members had the greatest retinal sensitivity during flash testing, and the RP-II, -III, and -IV groups had progressively decreasing mean sensitivity values, as would be expected since rod and cone loss gradually progresses over the course of the disease process. 
The low correlation coefficient obtained when comparing each subject’s mean test–retest SD of the better eye versus that of the worse eye for the full-field flash test suggests at most that 10% of the variance can be attributed to a common mechanism between the two eyes (e.g., cortical variability). The lack of correlation indicates that most of the variation is present before combination of the signals from the two eyes, most likely at the earliest processing levels, and can be thought of as detector noise in retinal processing. Therefore, it is likely that a retinal contribution dominates the dark-adapted flash test threshold variability in legally blind subjects. 
Conclusions
Each of the three dark-adapted psychophysical tests yielded comparable repeatability across most of the subject groups, indicating that these tests can be used to monitor change across many types of ocular diseases. Our results suggest that the most valuable measure of remaining vision in subjects with severe vision loss was the dark-adapted, full-field flash test, as it was capable of producing meaningful and repeatable results across all degrees of vision loss. These psychophysical tests performed under scotopic conditions will be useful for monitoring outcomes in early trials to reverse or halt vision loss. Such functional measures can be used to investigate safety in phase 1 clinical trials and efficacy in subsequent phase 2 and 3 trials, complementing measures obtained through clinical examination. Although our precise instrumentation may not be available to other centers, similar instrumentation and/or software can be developed for this purpose, using a Ganzfeld to present full-field stimuli, with built-in fixation control for the presentation of localized stimuli, and automated psychometric stimulation and recording procedures. Ideally, developing a dedicated instrument to perform all three dark-adapted tests would allow multiple centers to adopt identical outcome measures, making this series of psychophysical visual function tests all the more suitable for use in clinical research at multiple sites. 
 
Table 1.
 
Subject Data
Table 1.
 
Subject Data
Group Subjects (n) Female (n) VA
RP-I 8 6 >20/40
RP-II 8 4 20/40 to 20/199
RP-III 12 6 20/200 to 20/1000
RP-IV 5 2 <20/1000
MD-I 12 6 20/200 to 20/500
MD-II 2 2 <20/500
ON 4 1 <20/200
OR 9 5 <20/200
DR 5 2 <20/200
CTL 12 6 >20/25
Figure 1.
 
Left: dark-adapted, full-field flash test log; right: chart depicting the staircase procedure. Numbers indicate staircase cycle completed. r, right; w, wrong.
Figure 1.
 
Left: dark-adapted, full-field flash test log; right: chart depicting the staircase procedure. Numbers indicate staircase cycle completed. r, right; w, wrong.
Figure 2.
 
Dark-adaptation curve data for each subject group. Each curve represents one individual’s mean detection time across all visits, at the stimulus intensities plotted along the ordinate.
Figure 2.
 
Dark-adaptation curve data for each subject group. Each curve represents one individual’s mean detection time across all visits, at the stimulus intensities plotted along the ordinate.
Figure 3.
 
(A) Coefficient of variation (SD/mean) as a measure of timing variability (in %) across visits averaged across all subjects within each group as a function of dark adaptation test intensity. (B) Log coefficient of between-visit variation as a function of log mean timing (in minutes); each point represents a within-group average of values at a single attenuation level during dark adaptometry.
Figure 3.
 
(A) Coefficient of variation (SD/mean) as a measure of timing variability (in %) across visits averaged across all subjects within each group as a function of dark adaptation test intensity. (B) Log coefficient of between-visit variation as a function of log mean timing (in minutes); each point represents a within-group average of values at a single attenuation level during dark adaptometry.
Figure 4.
 
Threshold sensitivities, by group, averaged across subjects, visits, and 16 points tested with a size-V stimulus in the dark-adapted Humphrey perimeter, at 500- and 650-nm wavelengths. The third column for each group was computed similarly from point-by-point rod–cone sensitivity ratios. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals computed in two distinct manners. Those directed upward represent local (by point) test–retest fluctuations, averaged across points and subjects; those directed downward represent test–retest fluctuations of 16-point averages, averaged only across subjects.
Figure 4.
 
Threshold sensitivities, by group, averaged across subjects, visits, and 16 points tested with a size-V stimulus in the dark-adapted Humphrey perimeter, at 500- and 650-nm wavelengths. The third column for each group was computed similarly from point-by-point rod–cone sensitivity ratios. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals computed in two distinct manners. Those directed upward represent local (by point) test–retest fluctuations, averaged across points and subjects; those directed downward represent test–retest fluctuations of 16-point averages, averaged only across subjects.
Figure 5.
 
Dark-adapted Humphrey perimetry repeatability coefficients between test sessions (upward-directed bars), shown as a mean across visits and subjects for each group, and within test sessions (downward-directed bars), each indicating the one-sided CR.95 in dB (1.96 × SD of the differences between test and retest).
Figure 5.
 
Dark-adapted Humphrey perimetry repeatability coefficients between test sessions (upward-directed bars), shown as a mean across visits and subjects for each group, and within test sessions (downward-directed bars), each indicating the one-sided CR.95 in dB (1.96 × SD of the differences between test and retest).
Figure 6.
 
Dark-adapted, full-field flash thresholds, by group, averaged across subjects and visits. The error bars indicate the mean one-sided CR.95 in dB (1.96 × SD of the individual test–retest differences across group members).
Figure 6.
 
Dark-adapted, full-field flash thresholds, by group, averaged across subjects and visits. The error bars indicate the mean one-sided CR.95 in dB (1.96 × SD of the individual test–retest differences across group members).
Figure 7.
 
Scatterplot demonstrating the relationship of the dark-adapted full-field flash test versus dark adaptometry end values, including only those subjects whose dark adaptation end value fell within the range of the SST.
Figure 7.
 
Scatterplot demonstrating the relationship of the dark-adapted full-field flash test versus dark adaptometry end values, including only those subjects whose dark adaptation end value fell within the range of the SST.
Figure 8.
 
Scatterplot demonstrating the relationship of the dark-adapted, full-field flash test versus dark-adapted Humphrey perimetry with 500-nm test targets, including only those subjects whose 500-nm thresholds fell below the maximum stimulus intensity (0 dB). The slope of the dotted bivariate regression line was forced to 1.
Figure 8.
 
Scatterplot demonstrating the relationship of the dark-adapted, full-field flash test versus dark-adapted Humphrey perimetry with 500-nm test targets, including only those subjects whose 500-nm thresholds fell below the maximum stimulus intensity (0 dB). The slope of the dotted bivariate regression line was forced to 1.
Figure 9.
 
Scatterplot indicating the relationship between repeatability and final threshold level obtained for the dark-adapted, full-field flash test for each subject, including a regression line through all points.
Figure 9.
 
Scatterplot indicating the relationship between repeatability and final threshold level obtained for the dark-adapted, full-field flash test for each subject, including a regression line through all points.
Figure 10.
 
Scatterplot indicating the relationship between repeatability and final threshold level obtained for dark-adapted Humphrey perimetry for each subject, including a regression line through all points.
Figure 10.
 
Scatterplot indicating the relationship between repeatability and final threshold level obtained for dark-adapted Humphrey perimetry for each subject, including a regression line through all points.
Table 2.
 
Subject Mean Ratios
Table 2.
 
Subject Mean Ratios
Ratio 500 Ratio 650 Ratio Diff.
CTL 1.18 1.09 1.05
MD-I 1.99 1.33 1.05
ON 3.67 0.90 1.07
OR 1.17 2.78 1.55
RP-I 1.13 0.71 1.12
RP-II 0.71 4.26 2.86
RP-III 2.50 1.68 1.05
All subjects 1.65 1.92 1.38
The authors thank Nancy Lewis and Jim Stone for their contributions as study coordinators, and Janet Sunness, MD, and Shirin Hassan, PhD, for their insightful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. 
WeleberRG, KurzDE, TrzupekKM. Treatment of retinal and choroidal degenerations and dystrophies: current status and prospects for gene-based therapy. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2003;16:583–593.vii. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
AmbatiJ, AmbatiBK, YooSH, IanchulevS, AdamisAP. Age-related macular degeneration: etiology, pathogenesis, and therapeutic strategies. Surv Ophthalmol. 2003;48:257–293. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
LiuM, RegilloCD. A review of treatment for macular degeneration: a synopsis of currently approved treatments and ongoing clinical trials. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2004;15:221–226. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
AielloLP, CahillMT, CavalleranoJD. Growth factors and protein kinase C inhibitors as novel therapies for the medical management diabetic retinopathy. Eye. 2004;18:117–125. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
BorrasT. Recent developments in ocular gene therapy. Exp Eye Res. 2003;76:643–652. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rowe-RendlemanC, GlickmanRD. Possible therapy for age-related macular degeneration using human telomerase. Brain Res Bull. 2004;62:549–553. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
XuHJ. Retinoblastoma and tumor-suppressor gene therapy. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2003;16:621–629. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
PleyerU, RitterT. Gene therapy in immune-mediated diseases of the eye. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2003;22:277–293. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
KohSS, ArroyoJ. Macular translocation with 360-degree retinotomy for treatment of exudative age-related macular degeneration. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2004;44:73–81. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
MargalitE, MaiaM, WeilandJD, et al. Retinal prosthesis for the blind. Surv Ophthalmol. 2002′;47:335–356. [CrossRef]
LakhanpalRR, YanaiD, WeilandJD, et al. Advances in the development of visual prostheses. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2003;14:122–127. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
LimJI. Photodynamic therapy for choroidal neovascular disease: photosensitizers and clinical trials. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2002;15:473–478.vii. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
SakaguchiDS, Van HoffelenSJ, YoungMJ. Differentiation and morphological integration of neural progenitor cells transplanted into the developing mammalian eye. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2003;995:127–139. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
RadtkeND, AramantRB, SeilerMJ, PetryHM, PidwellD. Vision change after sheet transplant of fetal retina with retinal pigment epithelium to a patient with retinitis pigmentosa. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122:1159–1165. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
KiserAK, MladenovichD, EshraghiF, BourdeauD, DagnelieG. Reliability and consistency of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity measures in advanced eye disease. Optom Vis Sci. 2005;82:1–9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
RaaschTW, BaileyIL, BullimoreMA. Repeatability of visual acuity measurement. Optom Vision Sci. 1998;75:342–348. [CrossRef]
ElliottDB, SheridanM. The use of accurate visual acuity measurements in clinical anti-cataract formulation trials. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1988;8:397–401. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
ArditiA, CagnelloR. On the reliability of letter-chart visual acuity measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993;34:120–129. [PubMed]
Vanden BoschME, WallM. Visual acuity scored by the letter-by-letter or probit methods has lower retest variability than the line assignment method. Eye. 1997;11:411–417. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
RosserDA, CousensSN, MurdochIE, FitzkeFW, LaidlawDA. How sensitive to clinical change are ETDRS logMAR visual acuity measurements?. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:3278–3281. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
ElliottDB, SandersonK, ConkeyA. The reliability of the Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity chart. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1990;10:21–24. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
WoodsRL, Lovie-KitchinJ. The reliability of visual performance measures in low vision: vision science and its applications. Technical Digest Series, Optical Society of America. 1995;1:246–249.
JacobsonSG, VoigtWJ, ParelJM, et al. Automated light- and dark-adapted perimetry for evaluating retinitis pigmentosa. Ophthalmology. 1986;93:1604–1611. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
BlandJM, AltmanDG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476)307–310. [PubMed]
WeiszJM, HumayunMS, de JuanE, Jr, et al. Allogenic fetal retinal pigment epithelial cell transplant in a patient with geographic atrophy. Retina. 1999;19:540–545. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
BittnerA, DagnelieG. Individual reliability of psychophysical measures in legally blind subjects (abstract). Optom Vis Sci. 2004.81.
PetersAY, LockeKG, BirchDG. Comparison of the Goldmann-Weekers dark adaptometer and LKC technologies scotopic sensitivity tester-1. Doc Ophthalmol. 2000;101:1–9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
MassofRW, FinkelsteinD. Two forms of autosomal dominant primary retinitis pigmentosa. Doc Ophthalmol. 1981;51:289–346. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1.
 
Left: dark-adapted, full-field flash test log; right: chart depicting the staircase procedure. Numbers indicate staircase cycle completed. r, right; w, wrong.
Figure 1.
 
Left: dark-adapted, full-field flash test log; right: chart depicting the staircase procedure. Numbers indicate staircase cycle completed. r, right; w, wrong.
Figure 2.
 
Dark-adaptation curve data for each subject group. Each curve represents one individual’s mean detection time across all visits, at the stimulus intensities plotted along the ordinate.
Figure 2.
 
Dark-adaptation curve data for each subject group. Each curve represents one individual’s mean detection time across all visits, at the stimulus intensities plotted along the ordinate.
Figure 3.
 
(A) Coefficient of variation (SD/mean) as a measure of timing variability (in %) across visits averaged across all subjects within each group as a function of dark adaptation test intensity. (B) Log coefficient of between-visit variation as a function of log mean timing (in minutes); each point represents a within-group average of values at a single attenuation level during dark adaptometry.
Figure 3.
 
(A) Coefficient of variation (SD/mean) as a measure of timing variability (in %) across visits averaged across all subjects within each group as a function of dark adaptation test intensity. (B) Log coefficient of between-visit variation as a function of log mean timing (in minutes); each point represents a within-group average of values at a single attenuation level during dark adaptometry.
Figure 4.
 
Threshold sensitivities, by group, averaged across subjects, visits, and 16 points tested with a size-V stimulus in the dark-adapted Humphrey perimeter, at 500- and 650-nm wavelengths. The third column for each group was computed similarly from point-by-point rod–cone sensitivity ratios. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals computed in two distinct manners. Those directed upward represent local (by point) test–retest fluctuations, averaged across points and subjects; those directed downward represent test–retest fluctuations of 16-point averages, averaged only across subjects.
Figure 4.
 
Threshold sensitivities, by group, averaged across subjects, visits, and 16 points tested with a size-V stimulus in the dark-adapted Humphrey perimeter, at 500- and 650-nm wavelengths. The third column for each group was computed similarly from point-by-point rod–cone sensitivity ratios. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals computed in two distinct manners. Those directed upward represent local (by point) test–retest fluctuations, averaged across points and subjects; those directed downward represent test–retest fluctuations of 16-point averages, averaged only across subjects.
Figure 5.
 
Dark-adapted Humphrey perimetry repeatability coefficients between test sessions (upward-directed bars), shown as a mean across visits and subjects for each group, and within test sessions (downward-directed bars), each indicating the one-sided CR.95 in dB (1.96 × SD of the differences between test and retest).
Figure 5.
 
Dark-adapted Humphrey perimetry repeatability coefficients between test sessions (upward-directed bars), shown as a mean across visits and subjects for each group, and within test sessions (downward-directed bars), each indicating the one-sided CR.95 in dB (1.96 × SD of the differences between test and retest).
Figure 6.
 
Dark-adapted, full-field flash thresholds, by group, averaged across subjects and visits. The error bars indicate the mean one-sided CR.95 in dB (1.96 × SD of the individual test–retest differences across group members).
Figure 6.
 
Dark-adapted, full-field flash thresholds, by group, averaged across subjects and visits. The error bars indicate the mean one-sided CR.95 in dB (1.96 × SD of the individual test–retest differences across group members).
Figure 7.
 
Scatterplot demonstrating the relationship of the dark-adapted full-field flash test versus dark adaptometry end values, including only those subjects whose dark adaptation end value fell within the range of the SST.
Figure 7.
 
Scatterplot demonstrating the relationship of the dark-adapted full-field flash test versus dark adaptometry end values, including only those subjects whose dark adaptation end value fell within the range of the SST.
Figure 8.
 
Scatterplot demonstrating the relationship of the dark-adapted, full-field flash test versus dark-adapted Humphrey perimetry with 500-nm test targets, including only those subjects whose 500-nm thresholds fell below the maximum stimulus intensity (0 dB). The slope of the dotted bivariate regression line was forced to 1.
Figure 8.
 
Scatterplot demonstrating the relationship of the dark-adapted, full-field flash test versus dark-adapted Humphrey perimetry with 500-nm test targets, including only those subjects whose 500-nm thresholds fell below the maximum stimulus intensity (0 dB). The slope of the dotted bivariate regression line was forced to 1.
Figure 9.
 
Scatterplot indicating the relationship between repeatability and final threshold level obtained for the dark-adapted, full-field flash test for each subject, including a regression line through all points.
Figure 9.
 
Scatterplot indicating the relationship between repeatability and final threshold level obtained for the dark-adapted, full-field flash test for each subject, including a regression line through all points.
Figure 10.
 
Scatterplot indicating the relationship between repeatability and final threshold level obtained for dark-adapted Humphrey perimetry for each subject, including a regression line through all points.
Figure 10.
 
Scatterplot indicating the relationship between repeatability and final threshold level obtained for dark-adapted Humphrey perimetry for each subject, including a regression line through all points.
Table 1.
 
Subject Data
Table 1.
 
Subject Data
Group Subjects (n) Female (n) VA
RP-I 8 6 >20/40
RP-II 8 4 20/40 to 20/199
RP-III 12 6 20/200 to 20/1000
RP-IV 5 2 <20/1000
MD-I 12 6 20/200 to 20/500
MD-II 2 2 <20/500
ON 4 1 <20/200
OR 9 5 <20/200
DR 5 2 <20/200
CTL 12 6 >20/25
Table 2.
 
Subject Mean Ratios
Table 2.
 
Subject Mean Ratios
Ratio 500 Ratio 650 Ratio Diff.
CTL 1.18 1.09 1.05
MD-I 1.99 1.33 1.05
ON 3.67 0.90 1.07
OR 1.17 2.78 1.55
RP-I 1.13 0.71 1.12
RP-II 0.71 4.26 2.86
RP-III 2.50 1.68 1.05
All subjects 1.65 1.92 1.38
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×