June 2015
Volume 56, Issue 7
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2015
Automated static threshold perimetry using a remote eye tracker
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Pete R Jones
    Institute of Ophthalmology, UCL, London, United Kingdom
    NIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, London, United Kingdom
  • Sarah Kalwarowsky
    Institute of Ophthalmology, UCL, London, United Kingdom
  • Gary S Rubin
    Institute of Ophthalmology, UCL, London, United Kingdom
    NIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, London, United Kingdom
  • Marko Nardini
    Institute of Ophthalmology, UCL, London, United Kingdom
    Department of Psychology, Durham University, Durham University, United Kingdom
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Pete Jones, None; Sarah Kalwarowsky, None; Gary Rubin, None; Marko Nardini, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2015, Vol.56, 3908. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Pete R Jones, Sarah Kalwarowsky, Gary S Rubin, Marko Nardini; Automated static threshold perimetry using a remote eye tracker. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2015;56(7 ):3908. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract
 
Purpose
 

Current methods of Static Threshold Perimetry require (i) an explicit, button-press response (precluding testing of infants) and (ii) expensive, specialised equipment. Here we present a novel measure that addresses these problems by combining a cheap, commercially available, eye tracker (Tobii EyeX: $135), with an ordinary desktop computer.

 
Methods
 

Luminance detection thresholds were measured monocularly in 7 healthy adults (additional data collection ongoing), using both a Humphrey Field Analyzer [HFA] and an automated remote eyetracking [ARE] procedure (Fig 1A). The eye tracker was used to present stimuli relative to the current point of fixation, and to assess whether the participant made an eye-movement towards the stimulus. In both tests, Goldman III stimuli were arranged on a 24-2 grid, and were presented individually against a 10 cd/m2 white background. Participants completed each test twice (same eye) in order to assess test-retest reliability.

 
Results
 

The pointwise Coefficient of Repeatability was similar for the two tests (ARE: 8.1 dB. HFA: 6.3 dB). Differences in mean sensitivity to stimuli in the central 10° and those located more peripherally (10—24°) were observed in both the ARE (CI95% = 0.9—2.7 dB) and the HFA (CI95% = 2.3—4.6 dB). Furthermore, as shown in Fig 1B, the ARE was able to differentiate between the blind spot and surrounding retinal locations (t6 = -3.1, p = 0.021).

 
Conclusions
 

An eye tracker can be used to perform Static Threshold Perimetry based on eye movement responses alone. The ARE was sensitive to normal variations in sensitivity across the healthy eye, and could isolate the blind spot. It may therefore be capable of detecting visual field deficits, including acute scotomas. Its low price and ease of use could make such a test particularly effective as a means of screening infants.  

 
Fig 1. (A) Example trial for the ARE. Here a test point is presented at [-3° -6°], relative to the current point of fixation. Fixation at trial onset was unconstrained. The monitor was a Samsung 305T LCD, gain-corrected in software for uniformity. (B) Mean threshold data from the ARE, computed from 4 participants tested with their left eye. Numbers show the final threshold estimate at each location, in dB (higher = more sensitive). Note that the blind spot was measured in an identical manner to all other points, with no prior assumptions or constraints, in order to simulate an unknown scotoma.
 
Fig 1. (A) Example trial for the ARE. Here a test point is presented at [-3° -6°], relative to the current point of fixation. Fixation at trial onset was unconstrained. The monitor was a Samsung 305T LCD, gain-corrected in software for uniformity. (B) Mean threshold data from the ARE, computed from 4 participants tested with their left eye. Numbers show the final threshold estimate at each location, in dB (higher = more sensitive). Note that the blind spot was measured in an identical manner to all other points, with no prior assumptions or constraints, in order to simulate an unknown scotoma.

 
×
×

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.

×