April 2011
Volume 52, Issue 14
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2011
The Progressor Database: Perimetric Learning Effects In The Real World
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Trishal Boodhna
    Glaucoma, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • Jonathan Clarke
    Glaucoma, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • Ananth Viswanathan
    Glaucoma, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
    Glaucoma, UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Trishal Boodhna, Moorfields / Institute of Ophthalmology (E); Jonathan Clarke, Moorfields / Institute of Ophthalmology (E); Ananth Viswanathan, PROGRESSOR (P)
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIHR BMRC Grant
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2011, Vol.52, 5517. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Trishal Boodhna, Jonathan Clarke, Ananth Viswanathan; The Progressor Database: Perimetric Learning Effects In The Real World. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2011;52(14):5517. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose: : Investigation into the possible masking of visual field (VF) progression by perimetric learning effects

Methods: : 138,597 visual fields from the PROGRESSOR database of the Glaucoma Service of Moorfields Eye Hospital, London were examined for inclusion resulting in 8,278 eyes providing 41,390 visual fields. To be included in the study, subjects were required to be 18 years of age at first visual field and required to have undertaken at least four visual field test sessions. Sample means for mean sensitivity (MS) were calculated per test session with mean MSs analysed for the possible existence of learning effects.

Results: : Differences in terms of MS between the first and second visual fields were found to be insignificant. However significant differences between the second and third visual fields (-0.31 dB, P=0.001, ANOVA) and third and fourth visual fields (-0.24 dB, P=0.039, ANOVA) were observed. When data were stratified by MD, no significant changes in MS were observed across test sessions for "healthy VFs" (MD≥0 dB) whilst for "damaged VFs" (MD≤-2 dB), no significant changes were observed between the first and second and second and third visual fields. Significant changes observed between the third and fourth periods (P=0.041, ANOVA).

Conclusions: : In the whole dataset, no decline in MS was observed between VF1 and VF2. Given that the dataset is predominantly composed of glaucoma patients, the absence of deterioration suggests a possible learning effect. Stratification by MD suggests learning effects may be prolonged in more damaged VFs.

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.