June 2022
Volume 63, Issue 7
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2022
The Impact of Open Angle Glaucoma on ON-OFF Perimetry
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Jia Tan
    SUNY College of Optometry, New York, New York, United States
  • Mitchell W Dul
    SUNY College of Optometry, New York, New York, United States
  • Veronica Moore-Stoll
    SUNY College of Optometry, New York, New York, United States
  • Stephen Dellostritto
    SUNY College of Optometry, New York, New York, United States
  • Hamed Rahimi Nasrabadi
    SUNY College of Optometry, New York, New York, United States
  • Jian Zhong Jin
    SUNY College of Optometry, New York, New York, United States
  • Jose-Manuel Alonso
    SUNY College of Optometry, New York, New York, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Jia Tan None; Mitchell Dul None; Veronica Moore-Stoll None; Stephen Dellostritto None; Hamed Nasrabadi None; Jian Jin None; Jose-Manuel Alonso None
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIH Grant EY05253
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2022, Vol.63, 1256 – A0396. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Jia Tan, Mitchell W Dul, Veronica Moore-Stoll, Stephen Dellostritto, Hamed Rahimi Nasrabadi, Jian Zhong Jin, Jose-Manuel Alonso; The Impact of Open Angle Glaucoma on ON-OFF Perimetry. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2022;63(7):1256 – A0396.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Traditional white-on-white perimetry is limited to the functional assessment of the ON pathway. We investigated visual deficits in both ON and OFF pathways in patients with glaucoma and similarly-aged controls and compared these findings with standard automated perimetry (SAP).

Methods : Fourteen eyes from 14 subjects, 7 with glaucoma (48-76 years old; mean, 64 ± 10.28; severity from MD -0.48 to -18.25) and 7 controls (48-78 years; mean 65.14 ± 9.63) were tested at 8 Michelson contrast levels (5-20%) within the central 30 degrees of the visual field.

A single test included 579 trials (27 catch trials), at 92 locations, repeated 3 times for both light and dark stimuli. Each participant completed 8 tests (4,632 trials) using a head mounted display with eye tracker (HTC Vive Pro Eye, 90 Hz, maximum luminance: 110 cd/m2). Stimuli were light or dark squares generated with Unity software, presented on a spherical binary noise background, and with their size increasing with eccentricity.

Eye movements were measured at 120 Hz and restricted within 2.5 degrees for controls and 3.5 for glaucoma patients. Correct responses were measured across the entire visual field and within each quadrant. Differences between control and glaucoma subjects were plotted as a function of glaucoma severity.

Results : There was a positive correlation between the control - glaucoma subject difference in percent correct responses measured with ON-OFF perimetry and the visual sensitivity of glaucoma subjects measured with SAP for both the full visual field (r=0.74, p=0.0027) and the quadrant most affected by glaucoma (r=0.58, p=0.0297). Between each pair of subjects, the error rate was greater for glaucoma than control subjects for the full visual field and nasal quadrants, even if the quadrants were not flagged as significantly deviating from the SAP reference data base (see representative example in figure 1).

Conclusions : Glaucoma increases error responses within the central 30 degrees when compared to similarly-aged controls in ON-OFF perimetry, across the entire visual field and within field quadrants most associated with glaucomatous visual loss. Ongoing work is aimed toward the utility of this technology in a clinical setting.

This abstract was presented at the 2022 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Denver, CO, May 1-4, 2022, and virtually.

 

Figure 1. a. grey scale SAP, b. dB values of sensitivity SAP, c-f. % errors as a function of contrast for each of 4 quadrants

Figure 1. a. grey scale SAP, b. dB values of sensitivity SAP, c-f. % errors as a function of contrast for each of 4 quadrants

×
×

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.

×