Learning effect of standard automated perimetry in healthy individuals

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the learning effect in standard automated perimetry using SITA strategy, central 24-2 program, possible associated factors and spatial distribution in individuals with no perimetry experience. Methods: A total of 55 healthy subjects were submitted to Humphrey perimetry in two different sessions in one day. Reliability and global indices, and threshold sensitivity at each point were compared between the two examinations. The influence of potential factors (age, gender, and educational level) and the spatial distribution were evaluated regarding alterations between these two examinations. Results: The duration of the test was longer in the first session (median, 5.7 min; interquartile range [IQR], 1.7 min) than in the second (median, 5.3; IQR, 1.1 min) (p=0.002). The median (IQR) of false negative errors was 2% (6%) in the first examination and 0% (6%) in the second (p=0.04). The mean (standard deviation) in the mean deviation (MD) global index was -2.31 (1.86) dB in the first examination and -1.73 (1.69) dB in the second (p=0.07). No association was observed between the change in MD and age (p=0.29), gender (p=0.69) and educational level (p=0.27). The changes in threshold sensitivity were greater at the peripheral points than at the central points (p<0.001). Conclusion: The threshold sensitivity increased in the second examination compared to the first. No factors were associated with this change. The changes in threshold sensitivity were more evident at the peripheral points. ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

A Review of Learning Effect in Perimetry

“…Therefore, the examiner must be present throughout the perimetry test and be responsive to providing an individualized test procedure [6]. A number of possible factors are associated with the learning effect in a glaucoma patient, such as age, race, gender and previous experience [18].…”

Psychophysics, reliability, and norm values for temporal contrast sensitivity implemented on the two alternative forced choice C-Quant device

“…35 Several (flicker) perimetry studies show systematical variation between measurements and it is suggested that these are learning and fatigue effects. [36][37][38][39] However, for single frequency temporal contrast measurements, it is mentioned that fatigue effects are small, due to the relative simplicity and short duration (a few minutes) of the measurement. 12 In addition, the 2AFC method applied in this study shows no learning effects, i.e., there is no systematical difference between subsequent measurements, as can be seen in Fig.…”

Rarebit perimetry: normative values and test-retest variability

“…The mean test times were comparable to that of the HVF SITA‐Standard, which averages from over 5 min to under 7 min 15,16 . In terms of mean reaction times, there was a statistically significant difference between the young and mature groups in the foveal field test.…”

“…The mean test times were comparable to that of the HVF SITA-Standard, which averages from over 5 min to under 7 min. 15,16 In terms of mean reaction times, there was a statistically significant difference between the young and mature groups in the foveal field test. In common with other visual field tests, reaction times may need to be individualized to reduce the number of false positive hits, especially for older subjects.…”