July 2019
Volume 60, Issue 9
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   July 2019
Threshold versus intensity functions in two-color perimetry
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Matthew P Simunovic
    Ophthalmology, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    Vitreoretinal Unit, Sydney Eye Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Neil Avery
    Vitreoretinal Unit, Sydney Eye Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Zaid Mammo
    Vitreoretinal Unit, Sydney Eye Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Matthew Simunovic, None; Neil Avery, None; Zaid Mammo, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  Foundation Fighting Blindness CD-CL-0816-0710- SYD
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science July 2019, Vol.60, 4386. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Matthew P Simunovic, Neil Avery, Zaid Mammo; Threshold versus intensity functions in two-color perimetry. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2019;60(9):4386.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To determine the adaptational state and isolation of rod- and cone-mechanisms in two-color perimetry, a technique developed for assessing visual function in inherited retinal disease.

Methods : Seven normal subjects (aged 16-46yr), were examined using a MonCV Perimeter (MetroVision, Paris, France). Visual field tests were undertaken under scotopic conditions and then from -1.5 log cd.m-2 (0.2 log td) to 2 log cd.m-2 (3.7 log td; white background) in 0.5 log unit steps. Sensitivities were determined using a 4-2-2 dB staircase for 480nm and 640nm Goldmann size V targets at 17 locations within the central 60 degrees. Data were fitted with tvi functions of the form logT = logT0 + log ((A+A0)/A0), where T is threshold, T0 is absolute threshold, A is background intensity and A0 is the "dark-light" constant.

Results : The minimum value for cone T0 was at the fovea (-1.7 log td, 640nm stimulus) and for rod T0 at ≥ ±9,±9 (-4.2 log td, 480 nm stimulus). Cone A0 was lowest at the fovea (1.0 log td) whilst rod A0 was lowest at ±9,±9 (-0.70 log td). No clear rod-cone break was observed for 640nm stimuli at any stimulus location. For 480nm stimuli at all test locations, there was evidence of transition from rod-detection to cone-detection at mesopic illumination levels. Detection mechanisms did not display Weber behaviour until the background luminance approached 1 log cd.m-2/ 2.7 log td (see Figures 1 and 2).

Conclusions : 640nm targets are primarily detected by cones at all intensities; 480nm targets, however, are detected by rods until mesopic illumination levels are reached. These data are in keeping with spectral sensitivity estimates at fixed background intensities (Simunovic MP et al..TVST. 2016;5(3):10). Two-color perimetric tvi functions do not display Weber-like behaviour until photopic illumination levels are reached (1 log cd.m-2/ 2.7 log td). These findings suggest that two-color perimetry will be vulnerable to perturbations in ocular media and pupil size under clinical conditions, where background intensities are fixed.

This abstract was presented at the 2019 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Vancouver, Canada, April 28 - May 2, 2019.

 

Averaged foveal threshold sensitivity for blue (480nm, blue circles) and red (640nm, red circles) Goldmann size V targets versus background intensity (log troland). Bars show standard errors. Data are fitted with tvi functions (see text). The diagonal dashed line plots a slope of 1 (Weber's Law).

Averaged foveal threshold sensitivity for blue (480nm, blue circles) and red (640nm, red circles) Goldmann size V targets versus background intensity (log troland). Bars show standard errors. Data are fitted with tvi functions (see text). The diagonal dashed line plots a slope of 1 (Weber's Law).

 

Averaged peripheral (±3, ±3; ±9, ±9; ±15, ±15; ±21, ±21) sensitivity. Details as for caption 1.

Averaged peripheral (±3, ±3; ±9, ±9; ±15, ±15; ±21, ±21) sensitivity. Details as for caption 1.

×
×

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.

×