PURPOSE: To determine the effect of stimulus size on sensitivity of patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP) as measured by automated static perimetry. DESIGN: Comparative case series. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-nine patients with RP and a control group of 10 healthy volunteers. METHODS: Automated static perimetry (full threshold programs 24-2 or 30-2) was performed twice on one eye of each participant using stimulus sizes III (0.43 degrees diameter) and V (1.72 degrees diameter). Data from the same 50 test locations were used from each field. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: At each location, for each participant, the size effect was computed as the difference (in decibels) in sensitivities for sizes V and III, and the average sensitivity was computed as the mean of sensitivities for the two sizes. RESULTS: For both patient and control groups, the size effect was negatively correlated with average sensitivity (r(2) > 0.124; P: < 0.001). The mean size effect was significantly greater for the patient group than for the control group: 8.6 (+/- 3.6) dB versus 5. 4 (+/- 2.2) dB (t = 18.0; P: < 0.001). The percentage of abnormal locations (more than 8 dB below mean normal) tended to be lower for size V than for size III, with a mean of 67% for size V versus 95% for size III. The percentage of absolute defects was also lower for size V than for size III, with a mean of 35% for size V versus 54% for size III. CONCLUSIONS: In damaged regions of the visual fields of patients with RP, increase in stimulus size from III to V can produce abnormally large increases in perimetric sensitivity. Size III may be more useful than size V for detection of field abnormality, whereas size V may be more useful than size III for observing progression of advanced RP.
PURPOSE: To determine the effect of stimulus size on sensitivity of patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP) as measured by automated static perimetry. DESIGN: Comparative case series. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-nine patients with RP and a control group of 10 healthy volunteers. METHODS: Automated static perimetry (full threshold programs 24-2 or 30-2) was performed twice on one eye of each participant using stimulus sizes III (0.43 degrees diameter) and V (1.72 degrees diameter). Data from the same 50 test locations were used from each field. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: At each location, for each participant, the size effect was computed as the difference (in decibels) in sensitivities for sizes V and III, and the average sensitivity was computed as the mean of sensitivities for the two sizes. RESULTS: For both patient and control groups, the size effect was negatively correlated with average sensitivity (r(2) > 0.124; P: < 0.001). The mean size effect was significantly greater for the patient group than for the control group: 8.6 (+/- 3.6) dB versus 5. 4 (+/- 2.2) dB (t = 18.0; P: < 0.001). The percentage of abnormal locations (more than 8 dB below mean normal) tended to be lower for size V than for size III, with a mean of 67% for size V versus 95% for size III. The percentage of absolute defects was also lower for size V than for size III, with a mean of 35% for size V versus 54% for size III. CONCLUSIONS: In damaged regions of the visual fields of patients with RP, increase in stimulus size from III to V can produce abnormally large increases in perimetric sensitivity. Size III may be more useful than size V for detection of field abnormality, whereas size V may be more useful than size III for observing progression of advanced RP.
Authors: Maka Malania; Frédéric Devinck; Kenneth Knoblauch; Peter B Delahunt; Joseph L Hardy; John S Werner Journal: J Vis Date: 2011-09-22 Impact factor: 2.240
Authors: David G Birch; Paul S Bernstein; Alessandro Iannacone; Mark E Pennesi; Byron L Lam; John Heckenlively; Karl Csaky; Mary Elizabeth Hartnett; Kevin L Winthrop; Thiran Jayasundera; Dianna K Hughbanks-Wheaton; Judith Warner; Paul Yang; Gary Edd Fish; Michael P Teske; Neal L Sklaver; Laura Erker; Elvira Chegarnov; Travis Smith; Aimee Wahle; Paul C VanVeldhuisen; Jennifer McCormack; Robert Lindblad; Steven Bramer; Stephen Rose; Patricia Zilliox; Peter J Francis; Richard G Weleber Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Stuart K Gardiner; Shaban Demirel; Deborah Goren; Steven L Mansberger; William H Swanson Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2015-03-27 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Richard G Weleber; Travis B Smith; Dawn Peters; Elvira N Chegarnov; Scott P Gillespie; Peter J Francis; Stuart K Gardiner; Jens Paetzold; Janko Dietzsch; Ulrich Schiefer; Chris A Johnson Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Benjamin Otte; Chris Andrews; Gabrielle Lacy; Kari Branham; David C Musch; Kanishka T Jayasundera Journal: Ophthalmic Genet Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 1.803
Authors: Haogang Zhu; Richard A Russell; Luke J Saunders; Stefano Ceccon; David F Garway-Heath; David P Crabb Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 3.240