PURPOSE: To compare face recognition performance of glaucomatous patients with age-similar visually healthy people. METHODS: Percentage of correctly identified faces in the Cambridge Face Memory Test was assessed in glaucomatous patients (n = 54; mean age = 69) with a range of visual field (VF) defects and visually healthy controls (n = 41; mean age = 67). All participants underwent cognitive and visual assessment (binocular visual acuity [BVA], contrast sensitivity [CS], and Humphrey VFs, both 10-2 and 24-2) and had BVA of at least 0.18 logMAR. Patients were classified as having "early," "moderate," or "advanced" VF defects using the Hodapp, Parrish and Anderson Method: Patients were also stratified by better-eye 10-2 mean deviation (MD) being better or worse than the 1% normative value. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age (P = 0.25) or cognitive ability (P = 0.31) between groups; however, differences in BVA and CS were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Patients with advanced VF defects identified fewer faces on average (±SD) (66% ± 15%) than those with early (75% ± 11%) and moderate (75% ± 13%) defects and controls (75% ± 11%); P < 0.05. Patients with a best-eye 10-2 MD P < 1% identified fewer faces (67% ± 13%) than those with 10-2 MD P > 1% (77% ± 11%) and controls P < 0.01 (75% ± 11%). Multiple regression analysis revealed CS was important for face recognition. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with age-similar people with healthy vision, glaucomatous patients with advanced bilateral 24-2 VF loss, significant 10-2 VF loss, or poor CS are more likely to experience problems with face recognition.
PURPOSE: To compare face recognition performance of glaucomatouspatients with age-similar visually healthy people. METHODS: Percentage of correctly identified faces in the Cambridge Face Memory Test was assessed in glaucomatouspatients (n = 54; mean age = 69) with a range of visual field (VF) defects and visually healthy controls (n = 41; mean age = 67). All participants underwent cognitive and visual assessment (binocular visual acuity [BVA], contrast sensitivity [CS], and Humphrey VFs, both 10-2 and 24-2) and had BVA of at least 0.18 logMAR. Patients were classified as having "early," "moderate," or "advanced" VF defects using the Hodapp, Parrish and Anderson Method: Patients were also stratified by better-eye 10-2 mean deviation (MD) being better or worse than the 1% normative value. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age (P = 0.25) or cognitive ability (P = 0.31) between groups; however, differences in BVA and CS were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Patients with advanced VF defects identified fewer faces on average (±SD) (66% ± 15%) than those with early (75% ± 11%) and moderate (75% ± 13%) defects and controls (75% ± 11%); P < 0.05. Patients with a best-eye 10-2 MD P < 1% identified fewer faces (67% ± 13%) than those with 10-2 MD P > 1% (77% ± 11%) and controls P < 0.01 (75% ± 11%). Multiple regression analysis revealed CS was important for face recognition. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with age-similar people with healthy vision, glaucomatouspatients with advanced bilateral 24-2 VF loss, significant 10-2 VF loss, or poor CS are more likely to experience problems with face recognition.
Authors: Vahideh Manouchehri; Andrea Albonico; Jennifer Hemström; Sarra Djouab; Hyeongmin Kim; Jason J S Barton Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2022-09-07 Impact factor: 2.064
Authors: Thomas S A Wallis; Christopher Patrick Taylor; Jennifer Wallis; Mary Lou Jackson; Peter J Bex Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-01-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Pradeep Y Ramulu; Chad Hochberg; Eugenio A Maul; Emilie S Chan; Luigi Ferrucci; David S Friedman Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 1.973