Jae-Hyun Jung, Eli Peli1. 1. Schepens Eye Research Institute, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts *jaehyun_jung@meei.harvard.edu.
Abstract
SIGNIFICANCE: Full-field prisms that fill the entire spectacle eye wire have been considered as field expansion devices for homonymous hemianopia (HH) and acquired monocular vision (AMV). Although the full-field prism is used for addressing binocular dysfunction and for prism adaptation training after brain injury as treatment for spatial hemineglect, we show that the full-field prism for field expansion does not effectively expand the visual field in either HH or AMV. PURPOSE: Full-field prisms may shift a portion of the blind side to the residual seeing side. However, foveal fixation on an object of interest through a full-field prism requires head and/or eye rotation away from the blind side, thus negating the shift of the field toward the blind side. METHODS: We fit meniscus and flat full-field 7Δ and 12Δ yoked prisms and conducted Goldmann perimetry in HH and AMV. We compared the perimetry results with ray tracing calculations. RESULTS: The rated prism power was in effect at the primary position of gaze for all prisms, and the meniscus prisms maintained almost constant power at all eccentricities. To fixate on the perimetry target, the subjects needed to turn their head and/or eyes away from the blind side, which negated the field shift into the blind side. In HH, there was no difference in the perimetry results on the blind side with any of the prisms. In AMV, the lower nasal field of view was slightly shifted into the blind side with the flat prisms, but not with the meniscus prisms. CONCLUSIONS: Full-field prisms are not an effective field expansion device owing to the inevitable fixation shift. There is potential for a small field shift with the flat full-field prism in AMV, but such lenses cannot incorporate refractive correction. Furthermore, in considering the apical scotoma, the shift provides a mere field substitution at best.
SIGNIFICANCE: Full-field prisms that fill the entire spectacle eye wire have been considered as field expansion devices for homonymous hemianopia (HH) and acquired monocular vision (AMV). Although the full-field prism is used for addressing binocular dysfunction and for prism adaptation training after brain injury as treatment for spatial hemineglect, we show that the full-field prism for field expansion does not effectively expand the visual field in either HH or AMV. PURPOSE: Full-field prisms may shift a portion of the blind side to the residual seeing side. However, foveal fixation on an object of interest through a full-field prism requires head and/or eye rotation away from the blind side, thus negating the shift of the field toward the blind side. METHODS: We fit meniscus and flat full-field 7Δ and 12Δ yoked prisms and conducted Goldmann perimetry in HH and AMV. We compared the perimetry results with ray tracing calculations. RESULTS: The rated prism power was in effect at the primary position of gaze for all prisms, and the meniscus prisms maintained almost constant power at all eccentricities. To fixate on the perimetry target, the subjects needed to turn their head and/or eyes away from the blind side, which negated the field shift into the blind side. In HH, there was no difference in the perimetry results on the blind side with any of the prisms. In AMV, the lower nasal field of view was slightly shifted into the blind side with the flat prisms, but not with the meniscus prisms. CONCLUSIONS: Full-field prisms are not an effective field expansion device owing to the inevitable fixation shift. There is potential for a small field shift with the flat full-field prism in AMV, but such lenses cannot incorporate refractive correction. Furthermore, in considering the apical scotoma, the shift provides a mere field substitution at best.