March 2012
Volume 53, Issue 14
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   March 2012
Comparison of Fixation Target Stability for RareBit and Humphrey Visual Field Tests
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Shawn R. Lin
    Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
  • Isabella N. Lai
    Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
  • Sanjeev Dutta
    Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
  • Kuldev Singh
    Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
  • Robert T. Chang
    Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Shawn R. Lin, None; Isabella N. Lai, None; Sanjeev Dutta, None; Kuldev Singh, None; Robert T. Chang, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  Stanford Medical Scholars Grant #10610
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science March 2012, Vol.53, 198. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Shawn R. Lin, Isabella N. Lai, Sanjeev Dutta, Kuldev Singh, Robert T. Chang; Comparison of Fixation Target Stability for RareBit and Humphrey Visual Field Tests. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2012;53(14):198.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract
 
Purpose:
 

To compare fixation stability and fatigue when testing with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HVF, static fixation target) versus RareBit perimetry (RBP, kinetic fixation target) using a video gaze tracker.

 
Methods:
 

Fourteen healthy subjects were tested in one eye using an ASL Mobile Eye Tracker as they completed both HVF 10-2 and RBP Central Field tests. All video gaze data was recorded at a rate of 30 Hz. Fixation stability was calculated as the distance in degree minutes from the fixation target to the subject’s actual gaze. In order to determine fixation fatigue for each test, the amount of unfixated time (eyes closed or >20º from target) was measured for each subject. Subjects were also surveyed to find out which test they preferred.

 
Results:
 

The kinetic RBP test resulted, on average, in 18% better fixation stability relative to the HVF test (p=0.02). A total of 9 out of 14 study subjects demonstrated better fixation stability with the kinetic RBP target, 3 showed approximately equal fixation stability with both tests, and 2 had better fixation stability with the static HVF target.Subjects spent a significantly longer amount of time unfixated during the HVF test (10.0 seconds) relative to the RBP test (0.9 seconds) (p=0.002). Eighty six percent of study subjects reported a preference for the RBP field test.

 
Conclusions:
 

The use of a RBP kinetic fixation target is associated with more consistent fixation stability and less fixation fatigue during visual field testing than the HVF static target. The reduced fatigue with RBP may, at least partially, account for the greater comfort reported with this test relative to the HVF test.  

 

 
Keywords: visual fields • perimetry • neuro-ophthalmology: diagnosis 
×
×

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.

×