April 2011
Volume 52, Issue 14
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2011
Optimization of Threshold Estimation Algorithms for Visual Field Assessment
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Deborah Goren
    School of Optometry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
  • John G. Flanagan
    Dept of Ophthal & Vision Sci, Univ of Toronto,Toronto Western Hosp, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Deborah Goren, None; John G. Flanagan, Heidelberg Engineering (C, R), Heidelberg Engineering and Optovue Inc. (F)
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2011, Vol.52, 5509. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Deborah Goren, John G. Flanagan; Optimization of Threshold Estimation Algorithms for Visual Field Assessment. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2011;52(14):5509.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose: : To determine an optimal threshold estimation algorithm for visual field (VF) evaluation using the Heidelberg Edge Perimeter.

Methods: : Visual field simulations were run using a custom simulator within the Heyex database system used by all Heidelberg Engineering instruments. Previously measured sensitivity values are used as the basis for simulations and "n" iterations can be run from any preselected database. In addition custom VFs can be generated. Each point was tested using a frequency of seeing curve. All responses were based on their position on the frequency of seeing curve. 3 patient types (poor, average and perfect) were simulated using different slopes, and false positive/negative rates. Threshold estimation strategies were tested including basic staircases, adaptive staircases, MOBS and ZEST. Different step sizes were tested along with different rules for completion (e.g. minimum number of reversals versus value within XdB of age pdf). Checks for completion (e.g. retesting any point less than YdB) were also tested. Average number of trials was used to measuretest length. Mean of difference (MoD +/- CLs) was calculated between simulated and original data to measure accuracy of the test.

Results: : Primary points were tested with 422 and 421 with a minimum of 3 reversals. MoD values for staircases were similar, but 422 staircases had less trials (Poor patients: 314 vs 326). Secondary points were tested with 42 and 22 staircases for 2 different completion rules (minimum 2 reversals vs. within 3dB of age pdf). Completion requiring 2 reversals had less trials than 3dB age pdf for both 42 and 22 staircases, but larger MoDs. This difference was most pronounced for completion requiring 2 reversals (42:-0.54; 22:-2.4). MoDs were very similar for 42 and 22 staircases with completion of 3dB (-0.31 vs. -0.66), but 42 staircases had less trials (255 vs. 293). Checks for completion increased the number of trials (293 vs. 366), and did not have a large effect on MoD (-0.66 vs. -0.07).

Conclusions: : Primary points with 422 staircases with 3 reversals, followed by secondary points with 42 staircases and completion for points within 3dB of age-matched-normals produced the best combination of speed and accuracy.

Keywords: visual fields • perimetry 

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.