PURPOSE: To compare visual field abnormalities obtained with standard automated perimetry (SAP) to those obtained with the multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) technique in strabismic amblyopes. METHODS: Humphrey 24-2 visual fields (HVF) and mfVEPs were obtained from each eye of 12 strabismic amblyopes. For the mfVEP, amplitudes and latencies were analyzed and probability plots were derived. Multifocal VEP and HVF hemifields were abnormal if they had clusters of two or more contiguous points at p < 0.01, or three or more contiguous points at p < 0.05 with at least one at p < 0.01. An eye was abnormal if it had an abnormal hemifield. RESULTS: On SAP, amblyopic eyes had significantly higher foveal thresholds (p = 0.003) and lower mean deviation values (p = 0.005) than fellow eyes. For the mfVEP, 11 amblyopic and 6 fellow eyes were abnormal. Of the 11 amblyopic eyes, 6 were abnormal on SAP. The deficits extended from the center to mid periphery. Monocular mfVEP latencies were significantly decreased for amblyopic eyes compared with control eyes (p < 0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques revealed deficits in visual function across the visual field in strabismic amblyopes, but the mfVEP revealed deficits in fellow eyes and in more amblyopic eyes. In addition, mfVEP response latencies for amblyopic eyes were shorter than normal.
PURPOSE: To compare visual field abnormalities obtained with standard automated perimetry (SAP) to those obtained with the multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) technique in strabismic amblyopes. METHODS: Humphrey 24-2 visual fields (HVF) and mfVEPs were obtained from each eye of 12 strabismic amblyopes. For the mfVEP, amplitudes and latencies were analyzed and probability plots were derived. Multifocal VEP and HVF hemifields were abnormal if they had clusters of two or more contiguous points at p < 0.01, or three or more contiguous points at p < 0.05 with at least one at p < 0.01. An eye was abnormal if it had an abnormal hemifield. RESULTS: On SAP, amblyopic eyes had significantly higher foveal thresholds (p = 0.003) and lower mean deviation values (p = 0.005) than fellow eyes. For the mfVEP, 11 amblyopic and 6 fellow eyes were abnormal. Of the 11 amblyopic eyes, 6 were abnormal on SAP. The deficits extended from the center to mid periphery. Monocular mfVEP latencies were significantly decreased for amblyopic eyes compared with control eyes (p < 0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques revealed deficits in visual function across the visual field in strabismic amblyopes, but the mfVEP revealed deficits in fellow eyes and in more amblyopic eyes. In addition, mfVEP response latencies for amblyopic eyes were shorter than normal.