June 2021
Volume 62, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2021
Novel Virtual-Reality Perimetey in normal children compared to Humprey Field Analyzer
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Sylvia Linner Groth
    Ophthalmology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States
  • Edward Linton
    Ophthalmology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States
  • Eric Brown
    Ophthalmology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States
  • Frini makadia
    Ophthalmology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States
  • Sean Donahue
    Ophthalmology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Sylvia Groth, None; Edward Linton, None; Eric Brown, None; Frini makadia, None; Sean Donahue, Olleyes (I), Olleyes (C)
  • Footnotes
    Support  AGS MAPS Grant
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2021, Vol.62, 3391. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Sylvia Linner Groth, Edward Linton, Eric Brown, Frini makadia, Sean Donahue; Novel Virtual-Reality Perimetey in normal children compared to Humprey Field Analyzer. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2021;62(8):3391.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Perimetry in children is an invaluable modality for assessing afferent function. Current threshold perimeters demonstrate relatively poor reliability and satisfaction. The Olleyes VisuALL (OV) is a commercially available video-game based automated static threshold perimeter that uses a Virtual Reality headset, and a wireless remote.

Methods : Fifty normal subjects ages 9-17 (mean=13 years, 50% female) performed Humphrey Visual Field (HVF) 24-2 and Olleyes VisuALL pediatric threshold perimetry. Test time, reliability parameters, and effects of age, gender, and ethnicity were evaluated. Normative threshold sensitivities were established by percentile. Patient satisfaction surveys were administered.

Results : Median time to completion for OV and HVF was 7.06 and 5.25 min/eye respectively. Age-adjusted thresholds were similarly distributed between OV and HVF (Mean sensitivity 31.8± 1.11 dB OV, 31.0 ± 1.53dB HVF), mean inter-subject variability was no different as measured by Gini’s Mean Difference (2.7 +/- 0.4 OV and 2.7 +/- 0.6 HVF, p>0.25). Mild age-effects on threshold sensitivity in OV were similar to HVF (R2 = 0.10 p<0.01 OV; R2 = 0.08 p<0.01 HVF). Mean threshold sensitivities in the same eye were compared by linear regression (R2 = 0.11 p<0.001), and 5th percentile values were derived empirically at each location. Geographic effects on sensitivity and variability were concentric in the HVF as expected, and more sporadic for the OV. Patient satisfaction scores favored the OV device experience (1-5 scale, Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test p<0.01).

Conclusions : Attention to the task has long been a challenge in pediatric visual field testing. This game-based perimeter has higher patient satisfaction as well as tight correlation to the standard of care perimeter. Direct comparison of the two demonstrates less variability and tighter thresholds with the portable instrument which should translate into better ability to detect defects. The portability of the test allows it to be done in myriad environments lending to flexibility that can benefit children.

This is a 2021 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.

 

9-year-old child completing the VRP in clinic.

9-year-old child completing the VRP in clinic.

 

Comparison of median threshold sensitivity (A), 5th percentile threshold sensitivity (B), and inter-subject variability (C) at each location in the visuALL and the HVF. There was no significant difference in overall inter-subject variability (p>0.25) between the devices.

Comparison of median threshold sensitivity (A), 5th percentile threshold sensitivity (B), and inter-subject variability (C) at each location in the visuALL and the HVF. There was no significant difference in overall inter-subject variability (p>0.25) between the devices.

×
×

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.

×