May 2003
Volume 44, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2003
A Comparison of Visual Field Abnormalities Detected by Multifocal VEPs and Static Achromatic Automated Perimetry
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • D.C. Hood
    Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States
  • P. Thienprasiddhi
    NY Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, NY, United States
  • V.C. Greenstein
    NY Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, NY, United States
  • B.J. Winn
    NY Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, NY, United States
  • X. Zhang
    NY Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, NY, United States
  • N. Ohri
    NY Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, NY, United States
  • J.M. Liebmann
    NY Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, NY, United States
  • R. Ritch
    NY Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, NY, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  D.C. Hood, Zeiss C; P. Thienprasiddhi, None; V.C. Greenstein, None; B.J. Winn, None; X. Zhang, None; N. Ohri, None; J.M. Liebmann, None; R. Ritch, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIH Grant EY02115
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2003, Vol.44, 1042. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      D.C. Hood, P. Thienprasiddhi, V.C. Greenstein, B.J. Winn, X. Zhang, N. Ohri, J.M. Liebmann, R. Ritch; A Comparison of Visual Field Abnormalities Detected by Multifocal VEPs and Static Achromatic Automated Perimetry . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2003;44(13):1042.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: To better understand the relationship between local field abnormalities detected by the multifocal VEP (mfVEP) and static achromatic automated perimetry. Methods: The 49 patients selected for this study had: 1. a mean deviation (MD) of better than –8 dB in both eyes on the 24-2 Humphrey Visual Field (HVF) and 2. glaucomatous damage in at least one eye as defined by an abnormal disc and an abnormal HVF (PSD<5% and/or GHT outside of normal limits). Monocular mfVEPs were obtained from each eye using a pattern-reversal dartboard array, 44.5 deg in dia., and containing 60 sectors. Recording electrodes were placed at the inion (I) and I+4 cm, and also at two lateral locations up 1 cm and over 4 cm from I. Monocular and interocular analyses were performed [1,2]. For both the HVF and mfVEP tests, a hemifield was classified as abnormal on a cluster test [e.g. 2-4], if 2 or more contiguous points were significant at <1% or 3 or more contiguous points were significant at <5%, with at least one at <1%. Results: Of the 196 hemifields tested (49 patients X 2 eyes X 2 hemifields), 76 showed significant clusters on the HVF while 61 (interocular test) and 78 (monocular test) showed significant clusters on the mfVEP. Overall, the HVF and mfVEP agreed for 76% of the hemifields, 87 hemifields were normal and 61 were abnormal on both the mfVEP (interocular and/or monocular abnormal) and HVF cluster tests. Of the 48 disagreements, 33 hemifields had a significant cluster on the mfVEP, but not the HVF, while the reverse was true for 15 hemifields. A case-by-case analysis indicated that misses and false positives occurred on both the HVF and mfVEP tests. Conclusions: As predicted from a theoretical analysis [1,2], the HVF and monocular mfVEP tests detect a comparable number of defects and, with the addition of the interocular test, the mfVEP detects more abnormalities than the HVF. However, there are abnormalities detected by the HVF that can be missed by the mfVEP. 1. Hood et al (2002) AO. 2. Hood & Greenstein (2003), Prog Ret Eye Res. 3. Chauhan et al, (1988) Doc Ophth. 4. Goldberg et al (2002) AJO.

Keywords: electrophysiology: clinical • visual fields • ganglion cells 
×
×

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.

×