The results of these simulations showed that the TOP strategy has poor spatial resolution characteristics. Sensitivity estimates for small defects showed a characteristic bistratification
(Figs. 3 4) , with the depth of the defect typically being underestimated. Sensitivities were estimated with greater fidelity as defect size increased
(Figs 6 8 10) , although quite large defects of nine contiguous points were required before sensitivity estimates reaching 0 dB were achieved. It has been observed clinically that local absolute (0 dB) defects are missed by TOP.
8 The sensitivity estimates for normal points surrounding the defect were reduced, consistent with the “blurring” of defects noted clinically.
4 5 7
Figure 3 shows that the depth of defect and the knee in the bistratified data were determined, in part, by the submatrix in which the defect was located. This can be explained through a close examination of the TOP rules. For example, in the top left panel of
Figure 3 a “no” response in submatrix 1 should be recorded only when the sensitivity in the defect is below approximately 15 dB (half the age-expected sensitivity, and the starting point of the TOP procedure), and so sensitivities stratify based on whether the initially presented point was seen or not seen. All subsequent responses, being outside the area of loss, will proceed identically, regardless of the depth of the defect. Similarly, a “no” response would be expected in submatrix 2 only when the sensitivity in the defect declines below 22.5 dB (half the age-expected sensitivity + 7.5-dB step; see
Fig. 2 ). This corresponds to the location of the knee in
Figure 3 , bottom right. A defect in submatrix 4 is completely missed (
Fig. 3 , top right), because a “no” response is expected even in areas of normal sensitivity, in that the test stimulus in submatrix 4 is nominally subthreshold (8/16 + 4/16 + 3/16 + 2/16 = 17/16 of normal sensitivity). Because the TOP step size decreases as each submatrix is tested, the depth of the estimated defect becomes shallower the higher the number of the submatrix in which the defect is located. In addition, the impact of false responses would be expected to be greatest in the earliest stages of the TOP algorithm when low-numbered submatrices are being tested, and it is for this reason that patients responding incorrectly early in the test are advised to have the test repeated.
8
The situation becomes slightly more complex as contiguous defect points appear in the field (e.g.,
Fig. 4 ), although the general pattern still holds: Defective points in low-numbered submatrices return deeper defects than those in higher-numbered submatrices, with the knee in any stratification moving to higher sensitivities when defective points are in higher-numbered submatrices. The presence of stratification in the sensitivity values demonstrates that TOP is insensitive to change in the true visual field when defects are small. Because of this, it may be expected that the ability of TOP to monitor progression of visual field defects is compromised, despite previous work suggesting that TOP has similar variability characteristics to a conventional staircase strategy.
7
In all the simulations described in this article, the TOP algorithm provided a good estimate of MD. As this index is relatively insensitive to the localized visual field defects used in this evaluation, this result suggests that TOP provides appropriate sensitivity estimates of the normal areas of visual field. This dependence of the MD results on normal sensitivity is seen in
Figure 5 , where MD estimates are roughly symmetrically distributed above and below zero and are dependent on the variation in the sensitivity of the normal visual field (30 ± 1.5 dB) built into the simulation procedure, rather than the depth of the simulated defect. In contrast, the prediction of LV was less accurate and tended to underestimate the true LV when defects were deep
(Figs. 5 7 9) . This result agrees with the significant reduction in LV found in some clinical studies.
8 9 10 The index LV is more predictive of focal losses in sensitivity within the visual field, and so the underestimation of LV is consistent with the underestimation of defect sensitivity depth typically seen in TOP
(Figs. 3 4 6) . This underestimation was preserved in the presence of substantial false-positive responses
(Fig. 11) .
As expected, the performance of the TOP algorithm was poorest when defects were deep and well demarcated, because this is when surrounding sensitivity is poorly predictive of local sensitivity. Although modifications to the spatial averaging used in TOP have been proposed to produce better spatial localization of sharp scotomata,
5 these appear to be based on anatomic predictions made from the distribution of retinal ganglion cell nerve fibers and so would be expected to be of advantage primarily in diseases affecting these layers, such as glaucoma. In contrast, neurologic and chorioretinal lesions may cause deep, localized defects with a pattern of loss unrelated to the nerve fiber layer distribution in the retina.
In summary, the results of these simulations suggest that the TOP algorithm has a number of anomalies in its ability to both spatially localize defects and faithfully estimate sensitivity. Sensitivity in the area of small-
(Figs. 3 4) and moderate-sized defects
(Fig. 6) typically was overestimated, and the estimated sensitivity of normal surrounding areas decreased by a variable amount. The estimated sensitivity of a defect also depended on its absolute position within the field, with different TOP submatrices returning different sensitivity estimates. Given that threshold static automated perimetry should faithfully estimate location and sensitivity of the visual field, the TOP algorithm failed to perform appropriately in both respects and so cannot be recommended for use when accurate threshold perimetric information is needed. Reasonable sensitivities and specificities have been reported for the detection of various ocular diseases,
7 8 10 21 22 however, and so the TOP technique may be useful in screening for visual field damage.