Literature DB >> 14691193

The effect of attention on conventional automated perimetry and luminance size threshold perimetry.

Michael Wall1, Kimberly R Woodward, Caridad F Brito.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of divided attention on conventional automated perimetry (CAP) and luminance size threshold perimetry (LSTP).
METHODS: Ten healthy subjects, ages 27 to 65, with two perimetry types (CAP and LSTP) were tested in random order. At a later session, these tests were given with a mental workload to simulate the effect of anxiety or distraction on subjects performing visual field testing, also in random order. The mental workload, the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT), was first administered to each subject, and the score was recorded. During the visual field testing, the PASAT was again administered continuously. Each subject was instructed to attend primarily to the PASAT while taking each visual field test.
RESULTS: CAP was affected by the addition of the PASAT, with a worsening of sensitivity from an average of 30.0 +/- 0.67 to 24.2 +/- 7.4 dB with a range of -0.04 to -23.2 dB (P = 0.04). LSTP showed a generalized reduction in threshold 1.71 +/- 0.22 to 2.35 +/- 0.72 dB with a range of 0.12 to -2.17 dB (P = 0.25). The percentage of correct responses on the PASAT was not significantly different between CAP (76.9%) and LSTP (74.8%). False-positive and -negative catch trial responses were increased during CAP with PASAT testing (P = 0.009). A substantial increase of fixation losses occurred during CAP with PASAT (3.7-16.2, P = 0.002). LSTP with PASAT showed increases in localization error (P < 0.001) and reaction time (P = 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS: Divided attention significantly affects performance on conventional automated perimetry with its fixed size stimuli and when the stimuli are scaled (LSTP). The deficits may simulate nerve-fiber-bundle-like defects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14691193     DOI: 10.1167/iovs.03-0594

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci        ISSN: 0146-0404            Impact factor:   4.799


  11 in total

1.  Effect of defocusing and of distracted attention upon recordings of the visual evoked potential.

Authors:  Eedy Mezer; Yonatan Bahir; Rina Leibu; Ido Perlman
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.379

2.  Perimetric evaluation of saccadic latency, saccadic accuracy, and visual threshold for peripheral visual stimuli in young compared with older adults.

Authors:  David E Warren; Matthew J Thurtell; Joy N Carroll; Michael Wall
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2013-08-27       Impact factor: 4.799

3.  Individual differences in the shape of the nasal visual field.

Authors:  William H Swanson; Mitchell W Dul; Douglas G Horner; Victor E Malinovsky
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  Comparison of the new perimetric GATE strategy with conventional full-threshold and SITA standard strategies.

Authors:  Ulrich Schiefer; John P Pascual; Beth Edmunds; Elisabeth Feudner; Esther M Hoffmann; Chris A Johnson; Wolf A Lagrèze; Norbert Pfeiffer; Pamela A Sample; Flemming Staubach; Richard G Weleber; Reinhard Vonthein; Elke Krapp; Jens Paetzold
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2008-12-05       Impact factor: 4.799

5.  The Tölz Temporal Topography Study: mapping the visual field across the life span. Part II: cognitive factors shaping visual field maps.

Authors:  Dorothe A Poggel; Bernhard Treutwein; Claudia Calmanti; Hans Strasburger
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Application of Pattern Recognition Analysis to Optimize Hemifield Asymmetry Patterns for Early Detection of Glaucoma.

Authors:  Jack Phu; Sieu K Khuu; Bang V Bui; Michael Kalloniatis
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 3.283

7.  Eye-tracking-based visual field analysis (EFA): a reliable and precise perimetric methodology for the assessment of visual field defects.

Authors:  Michael Christian Leitner; Florian Hutzler; Sarah Schuster; Lorenzo Vignali; Patrick Marvan; H A Reitsamer; Stefan Hawelka
Journal:  BMJ Open Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-03-17

8.  Comparative Study Between the SORS and Dynamic Strategy Visual Field Testing Methods on Glaucomatous and Healthy Subjects.

Authors:  Şerife Seda Kucur; Sebastian Häckel; Jan Stapelfeldt; Jeannine Odermatt; Milko E Iliev; Mathias Abegg; Raphael Sznitman; Rene Höhn
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2020-12-02       Impact factor: 3.283

9.  The Frontloading Fields Study (FFS): Detecting Changes in Mean Deviation in Glaucoma Using Multiple Visual Field Tests Per Clinical Visit.

Authors:  Jack Phu; Michael Kalloniatis
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 3.283

10.  Reducing Spatial Uncertainty Through Attentional Cueing Improves Contrast Sensitivity in Regions of the Visual Field With Glaucomatous Defects.

Authors:  Jack Phu; Michael Kalloniatis; Sieu K Khuu
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2018-03-23       Impact factor: 3.283

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.