June 2017
Volume 58, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2017
Threshold visual field assessment using eye-tracking perimetry compared to standard automated perimetry in glaucoma.
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Andrew J Tatham
    University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
  • Ian Murray
    University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
  • Antonios Perperidis
    Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, United Kingdom
  • Lorraine Cameron
    Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, United Kingdom
  • Alice McTrusty
    Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, United Kingdom
  • Harry Brash
    University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
  • Brian Fleck
    University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
  • Robert Minns
    University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Andrew Tatham, Allergan (R), Santen (R), Thea (R); Ian Murray, None; Antonios Perperidis, None; Lorraine Cameron, None; Alice McTrusty, None; Harry Brash, None; Brian Fleck, None; Robert Minns, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  Wellcome Trust 049574, Action Medical Research AP1226, NHS Scotland Career Research Fellowship (AJT)
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2017, Vol.58, 4742. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Andrew J Tatham, Ian Murray, Antonios Perperidis, Lorraine Cameron, Alice McTrusty, Harry Brash, Brian Fleck, Robert Minns; Threshold visual field assessment using eye-tracking perimetry compared to standard automated perimetry in glaucoma.. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2017;58(8):4742.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To evaluate a new eye-tracking perimeter for threshold visual field assessment in glaucoma, the Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimeter (SVOP), and compare results to standard automated perimetry (SAP).

Methods : A cross-sectional study including 36 patients (70 eyes) with glaucoma and 27 controls (54 eyes) recruited at University of Edinburgh, Scotland. All subjects performed SAP and threshold SVOP, with the order randomized. SVOP consists of a computer, display screen and eye tracker, which assesses gaze responses to stimuli presented on the screen. Unlike SAP, the patient is not required to press a response button. Instead a computer algorithm was developed to determine if stimuli are perceived based on direction and amplitude of the gaze response. The test pattern used was equivalent to SAP 24-2 and stimuli were presented at Goldmann size III. The size and position of the stimuli were automatically adjusted to compensate for changes in patient’s position during testing meaning there was no requirement for a chin rest. Stimuli luminance levels corresponded to 14-40 dB. Average and point-wise sensitivity values obtained from both tests were compared using Pearson's correlation coefficient.

Results : Of 124 test pairs, 5 were excluded due to poor quality eye tracking and 10 due to poor reliability or artifact on SAP leaving 109 test pairs for analysis. There was excellent agreement between mean threshold values obtained using SVOP and SAP (r = 0.95, P<0.001) (Figure 1). Excluding the blind spot, correlation between SVOP and SAP individual test point sensitivity ranged from 0.61 to 0.90, with 48 of 54 test points > 0.70. Overall SVOP showed good repeatability with a Pearson correlation of 0.88. The repeatability on a point-by-point basis ranged from 0.66 to 0.98, with 45 of 54 points (83.3%) > 0.80. Repeatability of SAP was 0.87 ranging from 0.69 to 0.96, with 47 of 54 (87.0%) points > 0.80.

Conclusions : We have demonstrated an alternative method of measuring threshold visual fields that is repeatable and compares well with SAP. The technique has advantages over SAP as it does not require the patient to maintain fixation on a single spot, to keep their chin on a rest, or press a button to register a response. Eye-tracking perimetry could have utility for evaluating glaucoma, particularly in patients who struggle with conventional automated perimetry.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2017 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Baltimore, MD, May 7-11, 2017.

 

×
×

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.

×