April 2011
Volume 52, Issue 14
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2011
Are Some Non-Organic Field Defects Easier to Fabricate than Others?
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Nikki van Gemeren
    Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
  • Megan Johnson
    Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
  • Roly Megaw
    Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
  • Stephen A. Madill
    Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Nikki van Gemeren, None; Megan Johnson, None; Roly Megaw, None; Stephen A. Madill, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2011, Vol.52, 5572. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Nikki van Gemeren, Megan Johnson, Roly Megaw, Stephen A. Madill; Are Some Non-Organic Field Defects Easier to Fabricate than Others?. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2011;52(14):5572.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : The usefulness of manual kinetic perimetry is well recognised when defining the horizontal and vertical meridia of neurological field defects. However, the fabrication of hemianopic field defects should in fact be more challenging with automated static perimetry due to the randomisation of sequential stimuli locations. We investigated the ability of naive subjects to feign neurological field defects using a Humphrey perimeter in order to identify specific characteristics that could suggest a non-organic field defect.

Methods: : Observational case series. 20 subjects without visual pathway disease (normal fields confirmed post-protocol) were randomly assigned to feign a specific field defect, assessed using a Humphrey perimeter running 24-2 protocol. Defects included homonymous hemianopia with and without macular sparing (HH, HH+MS), monocular hemianopia (MH), superior quadrantanopia (Q) and bitemporal hemianopia (BT). The field defects were graded into 2 categories, accurate and inaccurate. Accurate field defects respected the appropriate meridia for the full width of the field with the majority of points within the defect graded as 0 decibels. Inaccurate fields had a combination of breakthrough across the appropriate meridia, the majority of points graded as >0 decibels or inaccurate placement of a specific feature, e.g. macular sparing. The results were cross-tabulated into complete hemianopic defects (HH, BT and MH) and incomplete hemianopic defects (HH+MS, Q) for analysis.

Results: : All subjects’ had acuities of 6/12 or better (age range 24-39). 12 patients feigned complete hemianopic field defects (3 HH, 4 MH and 5 BT) with all graded as accurate; 8 patients feigned incomplete hemianopic field defects (4 HH+MS, 4 Q) with 5 graded as accurate, 3 as inaccurate (2 HH+MS, 1 Q); Fisher’s exact test, p=0.003.

Conclusions: : Naïve subjects can feign complete hemianopic field defects accurately on static automated perimetry. With regard to incomplete hemianopic field defects, fulfilling the criteria for accurate fields as defined above is more use in providing evidence for the field defect being organic compared to complete hemianopic defects.

Keywords: visual fields 
×
×

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.

×