April 2011
Volume 52, Issue 14
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2011
A Method For Comparing Visual Field Defects To Local RNFL And RGC Damage Seen On Frequency Domain OCT
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Donald C. Hood
    Dept of Psychology and Ophthalmology,
    Columbia University, New York, New York
  • Ali Raza
    Dept of Psychology,
    Columbia University, New York, New York
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Donald C. Hood, Topcon, Inc. (F, C); Ali Raza, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIH Grant EY02115
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2011, Vol.52, 6570. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Donald C. Hood, Ali Raza; A Method For Comparing Visual Field Defects To Local RNFL And RGC Damage Seen On Frequency Domain OCT. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2011;52(14):6570.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

To develop methods for topographically comparing local visualfield (VF) defects to local retinal ganglion cell (RGC) andretinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thicknesses.


Macular and disc 3D cube scans (Topcon, Inc), as well as 24-2and/or 10-2 VFs (Carl Zeiss, Inc), were obtained from healthycontrols and patients with disease of the RGC/optic nerve. Usingan automated segmentation algorithm,[1] RNFL and RGC+inner plexiformlayer (RGC+) thicknesses were obtained. The 6mm x 6mm 3D densityplots for the macula and optic disc were co-registered for boththe RGC+ and RNFL (upper fig: RGC+ for a patient). To accountfor the displacement of the RGC bodies, the location of VF testpoints were adjusted;[2,3] see large squares (24-2 VF) and smallcircles (10-2 VF) in upper fig. Probability plots of abnormallythin RNFL and RGC+ regions, as compared to 128 healthy controleyes, were combined with the abnormal VF points using a commonprobability scale (lower fig.).


We found: 1. Accounting for the displacement of the RGCs isimportant for VF test points within about ±6° offixation; 2. Arcuate RNFL/RGC defects need not appear as arcuateson VF; 3. Wider field fdOCT scans are needed to optimize fdOCTto VF comparisons; 4. VF points are not optimally positionedfor detecting arcuate defects; 5. The joint probability plotscan help identifying subtle defects.


Improved methods for comparing local field and fdOCT defectswill be useful in understanding and confirming defects due todiseases of RGC/optic nerve, and for improving VF and OCT tests.1. Yang Q, et al., Opt. Exp. 2010; 2. Hood, Rasa et al, IOVS,2010; 3. Drasdo, Millican et al, VR, 2007.  


Keywords: imaging methods (CT, FA, ICG, MRI, OCT, RTA, SLO, ultrasound) • visual fields • imaging/image analysis: clinical 

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.