Purchase this article with an account.
Shahina Pardhan, Amy Scarfe, Rupert Bourne, Matthew Timmis; A Comparison of Reach-to-Grasp and Transport-to-Place Performance in Participants With Age-Related Macular Degeneration and Glaucoma. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2017;58(3):1560-1569. doi: 10.1167/iovs.16-20273.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To compare visually guided manual prehension in participants with primarily central field loss (CFL) due to age-related macular degeneration and peripheral visual field loss (PFL) due to glaucoma. This study extends current literature by comparing directly “reach-to-grasp” performance, and presents a new task of “transport-to-place” the object accurately to a new location. Data were compared to age-matched controls.
Three-dimensional motion data were collected from 17 glaucoma participants with PFL, 17 participants with age-related macular degeneration CFL and 10 age-matched control participants. Participants reached toward and grasped a cylindrical object (reach-to-grasp), and then transported and placed (transport-to-place) it at a different (predefined) peripheral location. Various kinematic indices were measured. Correlation analyses explored relationships between visual function and kinematic data.
In the reach-to-grasp phase, CFL patients exhibited significantly longer movement and reaction times when compared to PFL participants and controls. Central field loss participants also took longer to complete the movement and made more online movements in the latter part of the reach. During the transport-to-place phase, CFL participants showed increased deceleration times, longer movement trajectory, and increased vertical wrist displacement. Central field loss also showed higher errors in placing the object at a predefined location. A number of kinematic indices correlated significantly to central visual function indices (P < 0.05).
Significant differences in performance exist between CFL and PFL participants. Various indices correlated significantly with loss in acuity and contrast sensitivity (CS), suggesting that performance is more dependent on central visual function irrespective of underlying pathology.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only