May 2008
Volume 49, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2008
Logarithmic Versus Non-logarithmic Behavior of the Quadrant Sum in Humphrey V-Spot Visual Fields
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • S. Joshi
    University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
  • D. Richards
    University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
  • P. Kamath
    University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  S. Joshi, None; D. Richards, None; P. Kamath, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  Internal Grant from the University of South Florida College of Medicine
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2008, Vol.49, 1069. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      S. Joshi, D. Richards, P. Kamath; Logarithmic Versus Non-logarithmic Behavior of the Quadrant Sum in Humphrey V-Spot Visual Fields. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2008;49(13):1069.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose: : The Zeiss-Humphrey V-spot automated threshold visual field test ("V-spot") is frequently used clinically for patients with advanced field loss and/or decreased visual acuity. We compared the behavior of the V-spot quadrant sum (QS) in the logarithmic (db, geometric) versus non-logarithmic (arithmetic) domains.

Methods: : A total of twenty-seven Fastpac and Full Threshold 24-2 V-spot tests of seven eyes of five patients were transferred to a Sun Workstation. Range of QS was 0 to 419 db. The individual db sensitivities for the 108 quadrants were analyzed, using Interactive Data Language software, to produce the arithmetic mean (AM) and geometric mean (GM) for each quadrant. Mathematically, log(GM) = QS / 10 / (number of points in the quadrant). Standard deviations of the original db values and of their arithmetic equivalents were also computed for each quadrant. Arithmetic values were converted to db for comparison purposes.

Results: : For 4 ranges of QS (0-100, 101-200, 201-300, and >300), average AM (GM) were, in db: 7.8(3.3), 18.9(11.5), 24.1(18.9), 28.4(26.5). Average standard deviations for the same intervals were: 5.5(4.6), 6.9(9.0), 4.7(5.2), 2.8(5.2).

Conclusions: : The QS (or its equivalent, GM) consistently underestimates the average sensitivity of the quadrant for all ranges of QS. Standard deviations computed in the logarithmic domain are sometimes significantly greater than in the arithmetic domain. QS may not be the ideal estimator of average loss per quadrant in V-spot tests.

Keywords: visual fields • computational modeling • 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.