PURPOSE: The frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimeter has no provision for introducing corrective lenses, save for the patient's spectacles, and so patients are sometimes tested in the presence of moderate levels of defocus. The effect of defocus on frequency-doubling (FD) sensitivity was determined for both the commercially available instrument and for smaller targets that may be useful in spatially localizing visual field defects. In addition, whether stimulus artifacts may be detectable in the presence of defocus was assessed. METHODS: Detection and resolution thresholds for FD stimuli, along with detection thresholds for spatially uniform flickering stimuli, were measured in normal observers in the presence of up to +6 D of defocus. In addition, the effect of defocus on the summary indices (mean deviation [MD], and pattern standard deviation [PSD]) of both the commercial FDT perimeter and a customized perimeter with smaller, higher spatial frequency targets was determined. RESULTS: Thresholds for conventional FD targets (0.25 cyc/deg, 25 Hz) increased 0.1 log unit with +6 D defocus, whereas thresholds for smaller, higher spatial frequency (0.5 cyc/deg) targets increased 0.4 log unit. Despite the presence of a luminance artifact in the FD stimuli, detection, and resolution thresholds remained coincident at maximum defocus, suggesting that the artifact was not detectable. MD was significantly affected by defocus for the customized FD perimeter only, and PSD was not altered for either the conventional or customized test. CONCLUSIONS: In normal observers, optical defocus has little effect on FDT perimetry sensitivity and does not make low spatial frequency artifacts detectable. Improving the spatial resolution of FDT perimetry decreases its robustness to defocus.
PURPOSE: The frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimeter has no provision for introducing corrective lenses, save for the patient's spectacles, and so patients are sometimes tested in the presence of moderate levels of defocus. The effect of defocus on frequency-doubling (FD) sensitivity was determined for both the commercially available instrument and for smaller targets that may be useful in spatially localizing visual field defects. In addition, whether stimulus artifacts may be detectable in the presence of defocus was assessed. METHODS: Detection and resolution thresholds for FD stimuli, along with detection thresholds for spatially uniform flickering stimuli, were measured in normal observers in the presence of up to +6 D of defocus. In addition, the effect of defocus on the summary indices (mean deviation [MD], and pattern standard deviation [PSD]) of both the commercial FDT perimeter and a customized perimeter with smaller, higher spatial frequency targets was determined. RESULTS: Thresholds for conventional FD targets (0.25 cyc/deg, 25 Hz) increased 0.1 log unit with +6 D defocus, whereas thresholds for smaller, higher spatial frequency (0.5 cyc/deg) targets increased 0.4 log unit. Despite the presence of a luminance artifact in the FD stimuli, detection, and resolution thresholds remained coincident at maximum defocus, suggesting that the artifact was not detectable. MD was significantly affected by defocus for the customized FD perimeter only, and PSD was not altered for either the conventional or customized test. CONCLUSIONS: In normal observers, optical defocus has little effect on FDT perimetry sensitivity and does not make low spatial frequency artifacts detectable. Improving the spatial resolution of FDT perimetry decreases its robustness to defocus.
Authors: William H Swanson; Mitchell W Dul; Douglas G Horner; Tiffany Liu; Irene Tran Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-01-20 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Jean-Claude Mwanza; Joshua L Warren; Jessica T Hochberg; Donald L Budenz; Robert T Chang; Pradeep Y Ramulu Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2015 Oct-Nov Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: R J Casson; H S Newland; J Muecke; S McGovern; L Abraham; W K Shein; D Selva; T Aung Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Ji Hyun Kim; Sung Yong Kang; Na Rae Kim; Eun Suk Lee; Samin Hong; Gong Je Seong; Young Jae Hong; Chan Yun Kim Journal: Korean J Ophthalmol Date: 2011-03-11