Literature DB >> 15582084

Fixation stability using central and pericentral fixation targets in patients with age-related macular degeneration.

Caren Bellmann1, Mary Feely, Michael D Crossland, Stamatina A Kabanarou, Gary S Rubin.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine fixation stability for central and pericentral fixation targets in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD).
DESIGN: Comparative study. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve patients having late-stage AMD involving the fovea and 10 age-matched controls having no other eye diseases and visual acuity better than 20/25.
METHODS: Six different fixation targets (1 degrees cross; 1 degrees filled circle; 1 degrees letter x; small 4-point diamond; large 4-point diamond using dimensions as in a field analyzer; large-crossover whole-image diagonal with open 1 degrees center) were presented on a high-resolution monitor. Before examination, subjects were given verbal instructions to move their eye to see the center of the target best. Fixation stability was measured for the preferred eye, with the fellow eye occluded, using a gaze tracker. Fixation stability was quantified by calculating the bivariate contour ellipse area (BCEA) over 30 seconds for each target. For statistical analysis, BCEA values (minutes of arc2) were converted into their logarithms. The absolute retinal scotoma for the study eye was determined using a scanning laser ophthalmoscope. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Bivariate contour ellipse area.
RESULTS: Visual acuity in patients (age range, 57-87 years) ranged from 20/32 to 20/600. The lowest BCEA values were found for the 1 degrees letter x in patients (mean, 12052.2%+/-254.0%) and for the 1 degrees cross in normal subjects (mean, 1286.9%+/-47.8%); the highest BCEA values were found for the small 4-point diamond in patients (mean, 23109.5%+/-298.3%) and for the large 4-point diamond in normals (age range, 62-79 years) (mean, 3229.2%+/-105.4%). The difference between the targets was significant for normal subjects (analysis of variance [ANOVA], P<0.01) but not for patients (ANOVA, P>0.05). In normals, BCEA values were significantly lower for central fixation targets than for pericentral fixation targets (P<0.01).
CONCLUSION: Fixation is significantly less stable for pericentral fixation targets in normal subjects, indicating an advantage for central fixation targets. These results are particularly significant for any clinical and experimental testing method that requires the patient to maintain stable fixation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15582084     DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.06.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmology        ISSN: 0161-6420            Impact factor:   12.079


  29 in total

1.  Fundus motion during mfERG testing.

Authors:  Jennyffer D Smith; Allison Jussel; Rachel Wang; Daniel R Coates; Wendy W Harrison
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-03-13       Impact factor: 2.379

2.  Simulation of a central scotoma using contact lenses with an opaque centre.

Authors:  Essam S Almutleb; Arthur Bradley; Jason Jedlicka; Shirin E Hassan
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 3.117

3.  Exploring eye movements in patients with glaucoma when viewing a driving scene.

Authors:  David P Crabb; Nicholas D Smith; Franziska G Rauscher; Catharine M Chisholm; John L Barbur; David F Edgar; David F Garway-Heath
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-03-16       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Fixational Saccades and Their Relation to Fixation Instability in Strabismic Monkeys.

Authors:  Suraj Upadhyaya; Mythri Pullela; Santoshi Ramachandran; Samuel Adade; Anand C Joshi; Vallabh E Das
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 4.799

5.  Evaluation of fixation stability using different targets with the MP1 microperimeter.

Authors:  M Cesareo; D Manca; E Ciuffoletti; V De Giovanni; F Ricci; C Nucci; L Cerulli
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-04-11       Impact factor: 2.031

6.  Crowding during restricted and free viewing.

Authors:  Julian M Wallace; Michael K Chiu; Anirvan S Nandy; Bosco S Tjan
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2013-04-04       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  Fixation Stability Measurement Using Two Types of Microperimetry Devices.

Authors:  Hongting Liu; Millena G Bittencourt; Raafay Sophie; Yasir J Sepah; Mostafa Hanout; Zubir Rentiya; Rachel Annam; Hendrik P N Scholl; Quan Dong Nguyen
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2015-03-10       Impact factor: 3.283

8.  Retinal specific measurement of dark-adapted visual function: validation of a modified microperimeter.

Authors:  Michael D Crossland; Vy A Luong; Gary S Rubin; Fred W Fitzke
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-02-08       Impact factor: 2.209

9.  The Effect of Simulated Central Field Loss on Street-crossing Decision-Making in Young Adult Pedestrians.

Authors:  Essam S Almutleb; Shirin E Hassan
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 2.106

10.  Illusory stimuli can be used to identify retinal blind spots.

Authors:  Michael D Crossland; Steven C Dakin; Peter J Bex
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2007-10-24       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.