PurposeWe developed a new portable head-mounted perimeter, “imo”, which performs visual field (VF) testing under flexible conditions without a dark room. Besides the monocular eye test, imo can present a test target randomly to either eye without occlusion (a binocular random single eye test). The performance of imo was evaluated.MethodsUsing full HD transmissive LCD and high intensity LED backlights, imo can display a test target under the same test conditions as the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA). The monocular and binocular random single eye tests by imo and the HFA test were performed on 40 eyes of 20 subjects with glaucoma. VF sensitivity results by the monocular and binocular random single eye tests were compared, and these test results were further compared to those by the HFA. The subjects were asked whether they noticed which eye was being tested during the test.ResultsThe mean sensitivity (MS) obtained with the HFA highly correlated with the MS by the imo monocular test (R: r = 0.96, L: r = 0.94, P < 0.001) and the binocular random single eye test (R: r = 0.97, L: r = 0.98, P < 0.001). The MS values by the monocular and binocular random single eye tests also highly correlated (R: r = 0.96, L: r = 0.95, P < 0.001). No subject could detect which eye was being tested during the examination.ConclusionsThe perimeter imo can obtain VF sensitivity highly compatible to that by the standard automated perimeter. The binocular random single eye test provides a non-occlusion test condition without the examinee being aware of the tested eye.

The questionnaire appears to be a valid assessment of patient subjective perception of metamorphopsia and can be used to supplement the clinical measurements of metamorphopsia by M-CHARTS and PHP in patients with macular diseases.

PurposeThe head-mounted automated perimeter imo® is a new portable perimeter that does not require a dark room and can be used to examine patients in any setting. In this study, imo 24plus (1-2) AIZE examinations were compared with previous Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 30-2 (SITA standard) examinations within the same patient.Patients and methodsimo examinations (either head-mounted [i-H] or fixed [i-F] type) were performed in patients with glaucoma or suspected glaucoma who had already experienced HFA five or more times. Measurement time and correlations of mean deviation (MD) and visual field index (VFI) values were compared between groups for HFA, i-H, i-F, and imo total (i-T). Fixation loss (FL), false-positive (FP), and false-negative (FN) detection rates were compared. The percentage of binocular random single-eye tests under possible non-occlusion conditions using imo was determined. Mann–Whitney U test was performed, and Spearman’s rank-order correlation coefficient was calculated.ResultsThe inclusion period was July to December 2016. Among 273 subjects (543 eyes), 147 (292 eyes) were tested with i-H type and 126 (251 eyes) with i-F type. Mean MD values for HFA and i-T were -6.1±7.8 and -6.2±7.1 dB, respectively. Mean measurement times for HFA, i-H, i-F, and i-T were 15.23±2.07, 10.47±2.11, 11.04±2.31, and 10.54±2.19 minutes, respectively (P<0.01 for HFA vs i-H/i-F). Total mean measurement time was shorter by 30.8% for i-T vs HFA. Correlation coefficients of MD and VFI were R2>0.81 for HFA vs i-H and i-F. FP and FN detection rates were significantly higher with i-T than HFA; there was no significant difference in FL. Binocular random single-eye tests were possible in 85% of cases.Conclusionimo reduced measurement time by 30.8%. imo VFI and MD values were highly correlated with HFA. As i-F and i-H types produced similar results, imo can be used in accordance with the patient’s situation.

Got in Colloquial Singapore English (CSE) has grammatical and semantic functions which are very different from standard varieties of English such as Standard British English (BrE). This paper provides a comprehensive description of the usage of the word. Seven distinct meanings are identified: possessive, existential, realis modality (further divided into temporal location, aspect and emphasis), idiomatic use in the expression where got?, passive, 'to receive/obtain' and 'to become'. With regard to these seven meanings, the paper then makes a cross-linguistic comparison between CSE and four languages which played a role in the formation of CSE, namely BrE, Hokkien, Cantonese and Baba Malay. The results of the comparison show that it is Hokkien that constitutes the main substrate of CSE. This claim is further supported by sociohistorical facts and a comparison between CSE and Baba Malay of two expressions that are potentially of Malay-origin, namely the kena passive construction and the idiomatic expression where got?. Moreover, the paper also maintains that the sources of the various uses of got can be classified into three, two of which were gained through successful L2 acquisition and the other through a combination of simplification and relexification.

Background To quantify changes in metamorphopsia and retinal contraction in eyes with idiopathic epiretinal membrane (ERM) before and after a spontaneous separation of ERM. Methods Among 92 eyes of 92 patients with idiopathic ERM who were followed up at our hospital, 5 eyes of 5 patients had experienced a spontaneous separation of ERM during the follow-up period. Patient's metamorphopsia was assessed horizontally and vertically by a metamorphopsia chart developed by our group, M-CHARTS, to obtain the horizontal (MH) and vertical (MV) metamorphopsia scores. Difference in the scores before and after the membrane separation represents change in patient's metamorphopsia. Changes in retinal contraction were also evaluated horizontally and vertically with our original software for fundus image analysis. The difference between M-CHARTS scores and distances of retinal vessel movements with before and after membrane separation were measured. Results All five subjects showed a decrease in the retinal contraction. Improved visual acuity was observed in three subjects, and no change was seen in the other two. Four subjects obtained better metamorphopsia scores after the membrane separation, while the other one was not detected with metamorphopsia by M-CHARTS either before or after the separation. In subjects with an improved MV, horizontal retinal movement