Literature DB >> 27187584

Individual differences in the shape of the nasal visual field.

William H Swanson1, Mitchell W Dul2, Douglas G Horner3, Victor E Malinovsky4.   

Abstract

Between-subject differences in the shape of the nasal visual field were assessed for 103 volunteers 21-85years of age and free of visual disorder. Perimetry was conducted with a stimulus for which contrast sensitivity is minimally affected by peripheral defocus and decreased retinal illumination. One eye each was tested for 103 volunteers free of eye disease in a multi-center prospective longitudinal study. A peripheral deviation index was computed as the difference in log contrast sensitivity at outer (25-29° nasal) and inner (8° from fixation) locations. Values for this index ranged from 0.01 (outer sensitivity slightly greater than inner sensitivity) to -0.7 log unit (outer sensitivity much lower than inner sensitivity). Mean sensitivity for the inner locations was independent of the deviation index (R2<1%), while mean sensitivity for the outer locations was not (R2=38%, p<0.0005). Age was only modestly related to the index, with a decline by 0.017 log unit per decade (R2=10%). Test-retest data for 21 volunteers who completed 7-10 visits yielded standard deviations for the index from 0.04 to 0.17 log unit, with a mean of 0.09 log unit. Between-subject differences in peripheral deviation persisted over two years of longitudinal testing. Peripheral deviation indices were correlated with indices for three other perimetric stimuli used in a subset of 24 volunteers (R2 from 20% to 49%). Between-subject variability in shape of the visual field raises concerns about current clinical visual field indices, and further studies are needed to develop improved indices.
Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Contrast sensitivity; Perimetry; Periphery; Visual field

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27187584      PMCID: PMC5161726          DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2016.04.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vision Res        ISSN: 0042-6989            Impact factor:   1.886


  27 in total

Review 1.  Peripheral vision and pattern recognition: a review.

Authors:  Hans Strasburger; Ingo Rentschler; Martin Jüttner
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2011-12-01       Impact factor: 2.240

2.  A cortical pooling model of spatial summation for perimetric stimuli.

Authors:  Fei Pan; William H Swanson
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2006-10-13       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Spatial summation across the central visual field: implications for visual field testing.

Authors:  Sieu K Khuu; Michael Kalloniatis
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2015-01-12       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  The visualFields package: a tool for analysis and visualization of visual fields.

Authors:  Iván Marín-Franch; William H Swanson
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-03-14       Impact factor: 2.240

5.  In vivo adaptive optics imaging of the temporal raphe and its relationship to the optic disc and fovea in the human retina.

Authors:  Gang Huang; Thomas J Gast; Stephen A Burns
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2014-08-21       Impact factor: 4.799

6.  Estimation of local spatial scale.

Authors:  A B Watson
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A       Date:  1987-08       Impact factor: 2.129

7.  Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field.

Authors:  A Heijl; G Lindgren; J Olsson
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1987-11

8.  Blur-resistant perimetric stimuli.

Authors:  Douglas G Horner; Mitchell W Dul; William H Swanson; Tiffany Liu; Irene Tran
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 1.973

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

Authors:  Michael Wall; Kimberly R Woodward; Caridad F Brito
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 4.799

10.  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

View more
  5 in total

1.  Contrast sensitivity perimetry data from adults free of eye disease.

Authors:  William H Swanson; Mitchell W Dul; Douglas G Horner; Victor E Malinovsky
Journal:  Data Brief       Date:  2016-06-21

Review 2.  The Monocular Duke of Urbino.

Authors:  Stephen G Schwartz; Christopher T Leffler; Pamela S Chavis; Faraaz Khan; Dennis Bermudez; Harry W Flynn
Journal:  Ophthalmol Eye Dis       Date:  2016-12-11

3.  Customizing Perimetric Locations Based on En Face Images of Retinal Nerve Fiber Bundles With Glaucomatous Damage.

Authors:  Muhammed S Alluwimi; William H Swanson; Victor E Malinovsky; Brett J King
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 3.283

4.  Comparison of defect depths for sinusoidal and circular perimetric stimuli in patients with glaucoma.

Authors:  William H Swanson; Brett J King
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 3.117

5.  Scaling the size of perimetric stimuli reduces variability and returns constant thresholds across the visual field.

Authors:  Phillip Bedggood; Selwyn Marc Prea; Yu Xiang George Kong; Algis J Vingrys
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2021-10-05       Impact factor: 2.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.