Literature DB >> 29971443

Does Glaucoma Alter Eye Movements When Viewing Images of Natural Scenes? A Between-Eye Study.

Daniel S Asfaw1, Pete R Jones1, Vera M Mönter1, Nicholas D Smith1, David P Crabb1.   

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate whether glaucoma produces measurable changes in eye movements.
Methods: Fifteen glaucoma patients with asymmetric vision loss (difference in mean deviation [MD] > 6 dB between eyes) were asked to monocularly view 120 images of natural scenes, presented sequentially on a computer monitor. Each image was viewed twice-once each with the better and worse eye. Patients' eye movements were recorded with an Eyelink 1000 eye-tracker. Eye-movement parameters were computed and compared within participants (better eye versus worse eye). These parameters included a novel measure: saccadic reversal rate (SRR), as well as more traditional metrics such as saccade amplitude, fixation counts, fixation duration, and spread of fixation locations (bivariate contour ellipse area [BCEA]). In addition, the associations of these parameters with clinical measures of vision were investigated.
Results: In the worse eye, saccade amplitude\(\def\upalpha{\unicode[Times]{x3B1}}\)\(\def\upbeta{\unicode[Times]{x3B2}}\)\(\def\upgamma{\unicode[Times]{x3B3}}\)\(\def\updelta{\unicode[Times]{x3B4}}\)\(\def\upvarepsilon{\unicode[Times]{x3B5}}\)\(\def\upzeta{\unicode[Times]{x3B6}}\)\(\def\upeta{\unicode[Times]{x3B7}}\)\(\def\uptheta{\unicode[Times]{x3B8}}\)\(\def\upiota{\unicode[Times]{x3B9}}\)\(\def\upkappa{\unicode[Times]{x3BA}}\)\(\def\uplambda{\unicode[Times]{x3BB}}\)\(\def\upmu{\unicode[Times]{x3BC}}\)\(\def\upnu{\unicode[Times]{x3BD}}\)\(\def\upxi{\unicode[Times]{x3BE}}\)\(\def\upomicron{\unicode[Times]{x3BF}}\)\(\def\uppi{\unicode[Times]{x3C0}}\)\(\def\uprho{\unicode[Times]{x3C1}}\)\(\def\upsigma{\unicode[Times]{x3C3}}\)\(\def\uptau{\unicode[Times]{x3C4}}\)\(\def\upupsilon{\unicode[Times]{x3C5}}\)\(\def\upphi{\unicode[Times]{x3C6}}\)\(\def\upchi{\unicode[Times]{x3C7}}\)\(\def\uppsy{\unicode[Times]{x3C8}}\)\(\def\upomega{\unicode[Times]{x3C9}}\)\(\def\bialpha{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\)\(\def\bibeta{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\)\(\def\bigamma{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}\)\(\def\bidelta{\boldsymbol{\delta}}\)\(\def\bivarepsilon{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}\)\(\def\bizeta{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}\)\(\def\bieta{\boldsymbol{\eta}}\)\(\def\bitheta{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\)\(\def\biiota{\boldsymbol{\iota}}\)\(\def\bikappa{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}\)\(\def\bilambda{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\)\(\def\bimu{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\)\(\def\binu{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\)\(\def\bixi{\boldsymbol{\xi}}\)\(\def\biomicron{\boldsymbol{\micron}}\)\(\def\bipi{\boldsymbol{\pi}}\)\(\def\birho{\boldsymbol{\rho}}\)\(\def\bisigma{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\)\(\def\bitau{\boldsymbol{\tau}}\)\(\def\biupsilon{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}\)\(\def\biphi{\boldsymbol{\phi}}\)\(\def\bichi{\boldsymbol{\chi}}\)\(\def\bipsy{\boldsymbol{\psy}}\)\(\def\biomega{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\)\(\def\bupalpha{\unicode[Times]{x1D6C2}}\)\(\def\bupbeta{\unicode[Times]{x1D6C3}}\)\(\def\bupgamma{\unicode[Times]{x1D6C4}}\)\(\def\bupdelta{\unicode[Times]{x1D6C5}}\)\(\def\bupepsilon{\unicode[Times]{x1D6C6}}\)\(\def\bupvarepsilon{\unicode[Times]{x1D6DC}}\)\(\def\bupzeta{\unicode[Times]{x1D6C7}}\)\(\def\bupeta{\unicode[Times]{x1D6C8}}\)\(\def\buptheta{\unicode[Times]{x1D6C9}}\)\(\def\bupiota{\unicode[Times]{x1D6CA}}\)\(\def\bupkappa{\unicode[Times]{x1D6CB}}\)\(\def\buplambda{\unicode[Times]{x1D6CC}}\)\(\def\bupmu{\unicode[Times]{x1D6CD}}\)\(\def\bupnu{\unicode[Times]{x1D6CE}}\)\(\def\bupxi{\unicode[Times]{x1D6CF}}\)\(\def\bupomicron{\unicode[Times]{x1D6D0}}\)\(\def\buppi{\unicode[Times]{x1D6D1}}\)\(\def\buprho{\unicode[Times]{x1D6D2}}\)\(\def\bupsigma{\unicode[Times]{x1D6D4}}\)\(\def\buptau{\unicode[Times]{x1D6D5}}\)\(\def\bupupsilon{\unicode[Times]{x1D6D6}}\)\(\def\bupphi{\unicode[Times]{x1D6D7}}\)\(\def\bupchi{\unicode[Times]{x1D6D8}}\)\(\def\buppsy{\unicode[Times]{x1D6D9}}\)\(\def\bupomega{\unicode[Times]{x1D6DA}}\)\(\def\bupvartheta{\unicode[Times]{x1D6DD}}\)\(\def\bGamma{\bf{\Gamma}}\)\(\def\bDelta{\bf{\Delta}}\)\(\def\bTheta{\bf{\Theta}}\)\(\def\bLambda{\bf{\Lambda}}\)\(\def\bXi{\bf{\Xi}}\)\(\def\bPi{\bf{\Pi}}\)\(\def\bSigma{\bf{\Sigma}}\)\(\def\bUpsilon{\bf{\Upsilon}}\)\(\def\bPhi{\bf{\Phi}}\)\(\def\bPsi{\bf{\Psi}}\)\(\def\bOmega{\bf{\Omega}}\)\(\def\iGamma{\unicode[Times]{x1D6E4}}\)\(\def\iDelta{\unicode[Times]{x1D6E5}}\)\(\def\iTheta{\unicode[Times]{x1D6E9}}\)\(\def\iLambda{\unicode[Times]{x1D6EC}}\)\(\def\iXi{\unicode[Times]{x1D6EF}}\)\(\def\iPi{\unicode[Times]{x1D6F1}}\)\(\def\iSigma{\unicode[Times]{x1D6F4}}\)\(\def\iUpsilon{\unicode[Times]{x1D6F6}}\)\(\def\iPhi{\unicode[Times]{x1D6F7}}\)\(\def\iPsi{\unicode[Times]{x1D6F9}}\)\(\def\iOmega{\unicode[Times]{x1D6FA}}\)\(\def\biGamma{\unicode[Times]{x1D71E}}\)\(\def\biDelta{\unicode[Times]{x1D71F}}\)\(\def\biTheta{\unicode[Times]{x1D723}}\)\(\def\biLambda{\unicode[Times]{x1D726}}\)\(\def\biXi{\unicode[Times]{x1D729}}\)\(\def\biPi{\unicode[Times]{x1D72B}}\)\(\def\biSigma{\unicode[Times]{x1D72E}}\)\(\def\biUpsilon{\unicode[Times]{x1D730}}\)\(\def\biPhi{\unicode[Times]{x1D731}}\)\(\def\biPsi{\unicode[Times]{x1D733}}\)\(\def\biOmega{\unicode[Times]{x1D734}}\)\((P = 0.012; - 13\% \)) and BCEA \((P = 0.005; - 16\% )\) were smaller, while SRR was greater (\(P = 0.018; + 16\% \)). There was a significant correlation between the intereye difference in BCEA, and differences in MD values (\({\rm{Spearman^{\prime} s}}\ r = 0.65;P = 0.01\)), while differences in SRR were associated with differences in visual acuity (\({\rm{Spearman^{\prime} s}}\ r = 0.64;P = 0.01\)). Furthermore, between-eye differences in BCEA were a significant predictor of between-eye differences in MD: for every 1-dB difference in MD, BCEA reduced by 6.2% (95% confidence interval, 1.6%-10.3%). Conclusions: Eye movements are altered by visual field loss, and these changes are related to changes in clinical measures. Eye movements recorded while passively viewing images could potentially be used as biomarkers for visual field damage.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29971443     DOI: 10.1167/iovs.18-23779

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci        ISSN: 0146-0404            Impact factor:   4.799


  9 in total

1.  Seeing other perspectives: evaluating the use of virtual and augmented reality to simulate visual impairments (OpenVisSim).

Authors:  Pete R Jones; Tamás Somoskeöy; Hugo Chow-Wing-Bom; David P Crabb
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2020-03-10

2.  Using eye movements to detect visual field loss: a pragmatic assessment using simulated scotoma.

Authors:  Daniel S Asfaw; Pete R Jones; Laura A Edwards; Nicholas D Smith; David P Crabb
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-06-17       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Speed and accuracy of saccades in patients with glaucoma evaluated using an eye tracking perimeter.

Authors:  Andrew J Tatham; Ian C Murray; Alice D McTrusty; Lorraine A Cameron; Antonios Perperidis; Harry M Brash; Brian W Fleck; Robert A Minns
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-06-30       Impact factor: 2.209

4.  Systematic and Random Mapping Errors in Structure - Function Analysis of the Macula.

Authors:  Giovanni Montesano; Luca M Rossetti; Davide Allegrini; Mario R Romano; David F Garway-Heath; David P Crabb
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2021-02-05       Impact factor: 3.283

Review 5.  Eye Movement Abnormalities in Glaucoma Patients: A Review.

Authors:  Matthew A McDonald; Clark H Stevenson; Hannah M Kersten; Helen V Danesh-Meyer
Journal:  Eye Brain       Date:  2022-09-08

6.  The Human Touch: Using a Webcam to Autonomously Monitor Compliance During Visual Field Assessments.

Authors:  Pete R Jones; Giorgia Demaria; Iris Tigchelaar; Daniel S Asfaw; David F Edgar; Peter Campbell; Tamsin Callaghan; David P Crabb
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2020-07-20       Impact factor: 3.283

7.  Effect of Age, Sex, Stimulus Intensity, and Eccentricity on Saccadic Reaction Time in Eye Movement Perimetry.

Authors:  Deepmala Mazumdar; Najiya S Kadavath Meethal; Manish Panday; Rashima Asokan; Gijs Thepass; Ronnie J George; Johannes van der Steen; Johan J M Pel
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2019-07-30       Impact factor: 3.283

8.  Seeing other perspectives: evaluating the use of virtual and augmented reality to simulate visual impairments (OpenVisSim).

Authors:  Pete R Jones; Tamás Somoskeöy; Hugo Chow-Wing-Bom; David P Crabb
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2020-03-10

9.  What are the visuo-motor tendencies of omnidirectional scene free-viewing in virtual reality?

Authors:  Erwan Joël David; Pierre Lebranchu; Matthieu Perreira Da Silva; Patrick Le Callet
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 2.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.