May 2005
Volume 46, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2005
The Extent and Depth of Visual Field Deficits in Strabismic Amblyopia: A Comparison Between Conventional Perimetry and the mFVEP
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • V.C. Greenstein
    Dept of Ophthalmology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY
    Ophthalmology, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY
  • H. Eggers
    Dept of Ophthalmology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY
  • S.R. Tari
    Dept of Ophthalmology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY
  • D.C. Hood
    Dept of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  V.C. Greenstein, None; H. Eggers, None; S.R. Tari, None; D.C. Hood, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIH Grant EY02115
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2005, Vol.46, 5711. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      V.C. Greenstein, H. Eggers, S.R. Tari, D.C. Hood; The Extent and Depth of Visual Field Deficits in Strabismic Amblyopia: A Comparison Between Conventional Perimetry and the mFVEP . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(13):5711.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: To compare the extent and depth of visual field deficits obtained with standard automated achromatic perimetry (AAP) to those obtained with the multifocal visual evoked potential technique (mfVEP) in patients with strabismic amblyopia. Methods:Nine patients (18–60 yrs) with strabismic amblyopia were tested. All patients had complete orthoptic examinations, ETDRS visual acuity, assessment of fixation, AAP (program 24–2) and mfVEP testing. Monocular mfVEPs were obtained from each eye using a pattern–reversal dartboard array, 44.5 deg in diameter containing 60 sectors. Recording electrodes were placed at the inion (I) and I+4 cm, and at two lateral locations up 1 cm and over 4 cm from I. Pupil position was monitored during recording. Monocular and inter–ocular analyses of amplitude and latency were performed and probability plots were derived [1–3]. Results:Eight patients had esotropia and one exotropia. Visual acuity in the amblyopic eye ranged from log MAR 0.2 to 1.3. Two patients with log MAR 1.0 and 0.7 had unsteady eccentric fixation 2 deg nasal to the fovea. Seven patients had foveal fixation which was either steady or unsteady. Eight patients showed mfVEP field defects in the amblyopic eye and one with log MAR 0.2 had normal mfVEP responses. For the eight patients with defects, mfVEP amplitudes were markedly decreased. They were decreased not only in the central 2.5 deg but also in the temporal and inferior field for patients with esotropia and in the nasal superior field for the patient with exotropia and hypotropia. There were no significant increases in latency. The same patients showed decreased foveal sensitivity and visual field defects on AAP. However defects were not as extensive in area, or as severe, as those found on mfVEP testing. Conclusions:The mfVEP which primarily reflects activity in V1 reveals visual field deficits in the amblyopic eye that are more extensive and deeper than those found with standard AAP. 1.Hood et al (2002) AO. 2. Hood and Greenstein (2003) Prog Ret Eye Res. 3. Hood et al. (2005) Doc Ophthalmol.

Keywords: amblyopia • visual fields • electrophysiology: 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.

×