PURPOSE: To determine the feasibility of a new technique for suprathreshold automated static perimetry in children. DESIGN: Evaluation of diagnostic test or technology. PARTICIPANTS: The study included 29 subjects comprising 4 groups: 12 adults with normal fields, 4 children aged less than 10 years with normal fields, 8 adults with visual field defect, and 5 children aged less than 10 years with suspected visual field defects. METHODS: The system comprises a personal computer, display, and eye tracker to monitor gaze position when stimuli are presented in the visual field. The natural saccadic eye movement to fixate on the stimuli, if seen, can be detected and measured to produce a visual field plot. Subjects performed 3 eye-tracking tests, unless unable to do so for any reason: a 40-point binocular test and two 41-point tests for each eye. The tests were based on the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) Central-40 point screening test with a stimulus size of Goldmann III and intensity of 14 decibels (dB). Adults also performed the equivalent Humphrey screening test in each eye for comparison. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison of visual field plot results between the eye-tracking tests and HFA tests in adults. Correlation between the eye-tracking tests and the clinical assessment in the children with suspected visual field defects. RESULTS: In the eyes of all normal adult and child subjects performing the eye-tracking test, the percentage of points in agreement with a healthy visual field was 99.2% and 99.1%, respectively. The percentage of points agreeing with the HFA's screening test in the adult eyes with visual field defects was 89.8%. Visual field defects were also correctly identified by the eye-tracking system in the eyes of children with suspected visual field defects. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that suprathreshold automated static perimetry using eye tracking is a promising method of perimetry for use with children.
PURPOSE: To determine the feasibility of a new technique for suprathreshold automated static perimetry in children. DESIGN: Evaluation of diagnostic test or technology. PARTICIPANTS: The study included 29 subjects comprising 4 groups: 12 adults with normal fields, 4 children aged less than 10 years with normal fields, 8 adults with visual field defect, and 5 children aged less than 10 years with suspected visual field defects. METHODS: The system comprises a personal computer, display, and eye tracker to monitor gaze position when stimuli are presented in the visual field. The natural saccadic eye movement to fixate on the stimuli, if seen, can be detected and measured to produce a visual field plot. Subjects performed 3 eye-tracking tests, unless unable to do so for any reason: a 40-point binocular test and two 41-point tests for each eye. The tests were based on the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) Central-40 point screening test with a stimulus size of Goldmann III and intensity of 14 decibels (dB). Adults also performed the equivalent Humphrey screening test in each eye for comparison. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison of visual field plot results between the eye-tracking tests and HFA tests in adults. Correlation between the eye-tracking tests and the clinical assessment in the children with suspected visual field defects. RESULTS: In the eyes of all normal adult and child subjects performing the eye-tracking test, the percentage of points in agreement with a healthy visual field was 99.2% and 99.1%, respectively. The percentage of points agreeing with the HFA's screening test in the adult eyes with visual field defects was 89.8%. Visual field defects were also correctly identified by the eye-tracking system in the eyes of children with suspected visual field defects. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that suprathreshold automated static perimetry using eye tracking is a promising method of perimetry for use with children.
Authors: Dipesh E Patel; Phillippa M Cumberland; Bronwen C Walters; Isabelle Russell-Eggitt; John Brookes; Maria Papadopoulos; Peng Tee Khaw; Ananth C Viswanathan; David Garway-Heath; Mario Cortina-Borja; Jugnoo S Rahi Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Johan J M Pel; Michel C M van Beijsterveld; Gijs Thepass; Johannes van der Steen Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Marco A Miranda; David B Henson; Cecilia Fenerty; Susmito Biswas; Tariq Aslam Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2016-12-14 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: N S Kadavath Meethal; D Mazumdar; R Asokan; M Panday; J van der Steen; K A Vermeer; H G Lemij; R J George; J J M Pel Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2017-12-28 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Dipesh E Patel; Phillippa M Cumberland; Bronwen C Walters; Isabelle Russell-Eggitt; Jugnoo S Rahi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Deepmala Mazumdar; J J M Pel; Manish Panday; Rashima Asokan; L Vijaya; B Shantha; Ronnie George; J Van Der Steen Journal: Indian J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 1.848
Authors: Ian C Murray; Lorraine A Cameron; Alice D McTrusty; Antonios Perperidis; Harry M Brash; Brian W Fleck; Robert A Minns Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 3.283