Delayed saccadic eye movements in glaucoma

Kanjee, Raageen; Yücel, Yeni H.; Steinbach, Martin J.; González, Esther G.; Gupta, Neeru

doi:10.2147/eb.s38467

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 47 publications

(58 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With the advances in eye tracking technology, a possible way to screen for VFDs would be to use eye movements. Eye movements are a spontaneous visual behavior and there is ample evidence that the presence of a VFD evokes eye movement behavior that is different from normal ( Asfaw, Jones, Smith & Crabb, 2018 ; Kanjee, Yücel, Steinbach, González & Gupta, 2012 ; Lamirel, Milea, Cochereau, Duong & Lorenceau, 2014 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using natural viewing behavior to screen for and reconstruct visual field defects

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a need for simple and effective ways to screen for visual field defects (VFD). Watching a movie is a simple task most humans are familiar with. Therefore we assessed whether it is possible to detect and reconstruct visual field defects based on free viewing eye movements, recorded while watching movie clips. Participants watched 90 movie clips of one minute, with and without simulated visual field defects (sVFD), while their eye movements were tracked. We simulated homonymous hemianopia (HH) (left and right sided) and glaucoma (small nasal arc, large nasal arc, and tunnel vision). We generated fixation density maps of the visual field and trained a linear support vector machine to predict the viewing conditions of each trial of each participant based on these maps. To reconstruct the visual field defect, we computed “viewing priority” maps and maps of differences in fixation density of the visual field of each participant. We were able to classify the simulated visual field condition with more than 85% accuracy. In simulated HH, the viewing priority distribution over the visual field indicated the location of the sVFD in the simulated HH condition. In simulated glaucoma the difference in fixation density to the control condition indicated the location of the sVFD. It is feasible to use natural viewing behavior to screen for and reconstruct (simulated) visual field defects. Movie clip viewing in combination with eye tracking may thus provide an alternative to or supplement standard automated perimetry, in particular in patients who cannot perform the latter technique.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using natural viewing behavior to screen for and reconstruct visual field defects

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies have found patients with glaucoma to have delayed saccadic latency compared to healthy subjects. 6 , 9 , 10 For example, Mazumdar et al 6 used eye movement perimetry to evaluate saccadic reaction times to stimuli presented at locations corresponding to the 54 test points of SAP. 6 Patients with glaucoma had prolonged saccadic reaction times, with a trend towards increasing reaction times with increasing disease severity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 5 – 8 Studies using eye tracking also have shown that assessing the speed and accuracy of saccadic eye movements also may be useful for detecting disease, with differences in saccades noted between healthy individuals and those with glaucoma. 9 – 12 Eye tracking can be used to monitor patient gaze responses to peripheral stimuli, with the advantage that it does not require the patient to press a response button. Additionally, by continually monitoring the patient's eye location and adjusting the position and size of the stimuli accordingly, perimetry can be performed without the need for a chin rest.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Threshold Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimetry (SVOP) and Standard Automated Perimetry (SAP) in Glaucoma. Part II: Patterns of Visual Field Loss and Acceptability

McTrusty

Cameron

Perperidis

et al. 2017

Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeWe compared patterns of visual field loss detected by standard automated perimetry (SAP) to saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry (SVOP) and examined patient perceptions of each test.MethodsA cross-sectional study was done of 58 healthy subjects and 103 with glaucoma who were tested using SAP and two versions of SVOP (v1 and v2). Visual fields from both devices were categorized by masked graders as: 0, normal; 1, paracentral defect; 2, nasal step; 3, arcuate defect; 4, altitudinal; 5, biarcuate; and 6, end-stage field loss. SVOP and SAP classifications were cross-tabulated. Subjects completed a questionnaire on their opinions of each test.ResultsWe analyzed 142 (v1) and 111 (v2) SVOP and SAP test pairs. SVOP v2 had a sensitivity of 97.7% and specificity of 77.9% for identifying normal versus abnormal visual fields. SAP and SVOP v2 classifications showed complete agreement in 54% of glaucoma patients, with a further 23% disagreeing by one category. On repeat testing, 86% of SVOP v2 classifications agreed with the previous test, compared to 91% of SAP classifications; 71% of subjects preferred SVOP compared to 20% who preferred SAP.ConclusionsEye-tracking perimetry can be used to obtain threshold visual field sensitivity values in patients with glaucoma and produce maps of visual field defects, with patterns exhibiting close agreement to SAP. Patients preferred eye-tracking perimetry compared to SAP.Translational relevanceThis first report of threshold eye tracking perimetry shows good agreement with conventional automated perimetry and provides a benchmark for future iterations.

show abstract

“…If eye movements or eye-head coordination are impaired, this could be an important source of vision problems in strabismus, double vision, fixation problems, saccadic behavior, and nystagmus. Especially microsaccades are altered in classic “eye” diseases such as glaucoma ( Kanjee, Yücel, Steinbach, González & Gupta, 2012; Faiq et al, 2016 ) and amblyopia ( Shi et al, 2012 ). Also in different dementias microsaccadic eye movements are of interest as they may have clinical utility in early detection ( MacAskill & Anderson, 2016 ).…”

Section: Neurological Influences In “Ocular” Diseasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Residual vision activation and the brain-eye-vascular triad: Dysregulation, plasticity and restoration in low vision and blindness – a review

Sabel

Merabet

2018

RNN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vision loss due to ocular diseases such as glaucoma, optic neuropathy, macular degeneration, or diabetic retinopathy, are generally considered an exclusive affair of the retina and/or optic nerve. However, the brain, through multiple indirect influences, has also a major impact on functional visual impairment. Such indirect influences include intracerebral pressure, eye movements, top-down modulation (attention, cognition), and emotionally triggered stress hormone release affecting blood vessel dysregulation. Therefore, vision loss should be viewed as the result of multiple interactions within a “brain-eye-vascular triad”, and several eye diseases may also be considered as brain diseases in disguise. While the brain is part of the problem, it can also be part of the solution. Neuronal networks of the brain can “amplify” residual vision through neuroplasticity changes of local and global functional connectivity by activating, modulating and strengthening residual visual signals. The activation of residual vision can be achieved by different means such as vision restoration training, non-invasive brain stimulation, or blood flow enhancing medications. Modulating brain functional networks and improving vascular regulation may offer new opportunities to recover or restore low vision by increasing visual field size, visual acuity and overall functional vision. Hence, neuroscience offers new insights to better understand vision loss, and modulating brain and vascular function is a promising source for new opportunities to activate residual vision to achieve restoration and recovery to improve quality of live in patients suffering from low vision.

show abstract

Delayed saccadic eye movements in glaucoma

Cited by 17 publications

References 47 publications

Using natural viewing behavior to screen for and reconstruct visual field defects

Using natural viewing behavior to screen for and reconstruct visual field defects

Comparison of Threshold Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimetry (SVOP) and Standard Automated Perimetry (SAP) in Glaucoma. Part II: Patterns of Visual Field Loss and Acceptability

Residual vision activation and the brain-eye-vascular triad: Dysregulation, plasticity and restoration in low vision and blindness – a review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About