Development and Evaluation of a Contrast Sensitivity Perimetry Test for Patients with Glaucoma

Hot, A.; Dul, Mitchell W.; Swanson, William H.

doi:10.1167/iovs.07-1205

Cited by 48 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Further detail on strategies for assessing and managing fixation loss, false positives, false negatives, lens and lid, and other artifacts are described elsewhere. 18,36 Clinical perimeters use units of decibels, which has a different meaning for each device. In order to have common units across devices, we converted results from clinical devices to log contrast sensitivity (logCS), where contrast sensitivity is the reciprocal of contrast threshold.…”

Section: Perimetrymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Perimetry with Gabor stimuli is similar to perimetry with frequencydoubling stimuli in that test-retest variability does not increase in glaucomatous defects. 18 These variability properties of sinusoidal stimuli could be due to increased stimulus size [19][20][21] or to decreased stimulus range. [22][23][24] The current study was designed to assess the effects of stimulus size and range and to provide guidelines for selecting perimetric stimuli that reduce test-retest variability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Choice of Stimulus Range and Size Can Reduce Test-Retest Variability in Glaucomatous Visual Field Defects

Swanson

Horner

Dul

et al. 2014

Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To develop guidelines for engineering perimetric stimuli to reduce testretest variability in glaucomatous defects.Methods: Perimetric testing was performed on one eye for 62 patients with glaucoma and 41 age-similar controls on size III and frequency-doubling perimetry and three custom tests with Gaussian blob and Gabor sinusoid stimuli. Stimulus range was controlled by values for ceiling (maximum sensitivity) and floor (minimum sensitivity). Bland-Altman analysis was used to derive 95% limits of agreement on test and retest, and bootstrap analysis was used to test the hypotheses about peak variability.Results: Limits of agreement for the three custom stimuli were similar in width (0.72 to 0.79 log units) and peak variability (0.22 to 0.29 log units) for a stimulus range of 1.7 log units. The width of the limits of agreement for size III decreased from 1.78 to 1.37 to 0.99 log units for stimulus ranges of 3.9, 2.7, and 1.7 log units, respectively (F ¼ 3.23, P , 0.001); peak variability was 0.99, 0.54, and 0.34 log units, respectively (P , 0.01). For a stimulus range of 1.3 log units, limits of agreement were narrowest with Gabor and widest with size III stimuli, and peak variability was lower (P , 0.01) with Gabor (0.18 log units) and frequency-doubling perimetry (0.24 log units) than with size III stimuli (0.38 log units).Conclusions: Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual field defects was substantially reduced by engineering the stimuli.Translational Relevance: The guidelines should allow developers to choose from a wide range of stimuli.

show abstract

Section: Perimetrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Choice of Stimulus Range and Size Can Reduce Test-Retest Variability in Glaucomatous Visual Field Defects

Swanson

Horner

Dul

et al. 2014

Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] (Burr D, et al IOVS 2003;44: ARVO E-Abstract 3193). It has been shown, however, that the usefulness of these functions is rather limited in practice, for several reasons.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, different perimetry techniques have been developed to asses the sensitivity of the visual system at different points of the visual field, but instruments performing contrast sensitivity tests with sinusoidal gratings are scarce and, in fact, none of them explores a sufficiently large frequency range, neither in the spatial nor in the temporal domain. 5,16,[18][19][20] However, exploring the frequency range could be useful, since damage caused by different pathologies may affect different regions of the frequency spectrum. 1,3,[21][22] (Burr D, et al IOVS 2003;44: ARVO E-Abstract 3193).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatio-temporal Contrast Sensitivity in the Cardinal Directions of the Colour Space. A Review

Dı́ez-Ajenjo

Capilla

2010

Journal of Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We review the psychophysics of the spatio-temporal contrast sensitivity in the cardinal directions of the colour space and their correlation with those neural characteristics of the visual system that limit the ability to perform contrast detection or pattern-resolution tasks. We focus our attention particularly on the influence of luminance level, spatial extent and spatial location of the stimuli -factors that determine the characteristics of the physiological mechanisms underlying detection. Optical factors do obviously play a role, but we will refer to them only briefly. Contrast sensitivity measurements are often used in clinical practice as a method to detect, at their early stages, a variety of pathologies affecting the visual system, but their usefulness is very limited due to several reasons. We suggest some considerations about stimuli characteristics that should be taken into account in order to improve the performance of this kind of measurement. RESUMENSe revisa la psicofísica sobre la sensibilidad al contraste con patrones espacio-temporales en las direcciones cardinales del espacio de color y su relación con las características neuronales del sistema visual que limitan la habilidad para realizar una tarea de detección de contraste o de resolución de patrones. La atención se centra especialmente en la influencia del nivel de luminancia, el tamaño y la localización espacial de los estímulos, en la medida que estos son los factores más importantes que determinan las características de los mecanismos fisiológicos que median la detección. Obviamente, los factores ópti-cos también juegan un papel en el conjunto del sistema visual, pero nos referiremos a ellos sólo brevemente. Las medidas de sensibilidad al contraste son a menudo usadas en clínica como método para detectar, en un estado temprano, una amplia variedad de patologías del sistema visual, pero su utilidad en la práctica es bastante limitada por diferentes razones. Sugerimos que ciertas consideraciones sobre los estímulos deberían ser tenidas en cuenta si se quiere mejorar las prestaciones actuales de este tipo de medidas. (J Optom 2010;3:2-19 ©2010 Consejo General de Colegios de Ópticos-Optometristas de España) PALABRAS CLAVE: sensibilidad al contraste; patrones espacio-temporales; espacio de color; direcciones cardinales; caminos visuales. INTRODUCTIONDuring the last three decades, the possibility of early detection of a variety of pathologies affecting the visual system by means of the measurement of spatial and temporal contrast sensitivity functions -CSFs-has been thoroughly explored. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] (Burr D, et al. IOVS 2003;44: ARVO E-Abstract 3193). It has been shown, however, that the usefulness of these functions is rather limited in practice, for several reasons. In the first place, measurements are often limited to the fovea, whilst anatomical damage and functional loss frequently begin outside this region [see, for example, F. Rowe's book 17 ]. In fact, different perimetry technique...

show abstract

“…15 Steeper FoS curves have also been proposed as an advantage of using the low spatial, high temporal frequency stimuli of the frequency-doubling perimeter; however, the comparison is not straightforward because the test dynamic range is restricted relative to SAP. 16,17 Keeping test-retest variability consistent across the test stimulus range has also been the goal of new stimuli proposed by Hot et al 18 FoS curves can also be manipulated by altering the attentional demands of the task. 19 Choosing to move to a new perimetric test procedure (measurement algorithm, stimulus, or both) is nontrivial, because new baseline measures, analysis techniques, and retraining are necessary.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What Reduction in Standard Automated Perimetry Variability Would Improve the Detection of Visual Field Progression?

Turpin

McKendrick

2011

Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE. The test-retest variability of standard automated perimetry (SAP) severely limits its ability to detect sensitivity decline. Numerous improvements in procedures have been proposed, but assessment of their benefits requires quantification of how much variability reduction results in meaningful benefit. This article determines how much reduction in SAP procedure variability is necessary to permit earlier detection of visual field deterioration. METHOD. Computer simulation and statistical analysis were used. Gaussian distributions were fit to the probability of observing any sensitivity measurement obtained with SAP and the Full Threshold algorithm to model current variability. The standard deviation of these Gaussians was systematically reduced to model a reduction of SAP variability. Progression detection ability was assessed by using pointwise linear regression on decreases of -1 and -2 dB/year from 20 and 30 dB, with a custom criteria that fixed detection specificity at 95%. Test visits occurring twice and thrice per annum are modeled, and analysis was performed on single locations and whole fields. RESULTS. A 30% to 60% reduction in SAP variability was required to detect pointwise deterioration 1 year earlier than current methods, depending on progression rate and visit frequency. A reduction of 20% in variability generally allowed progression to be detected one visit earlier. CONCLUSIONS. On average, the variability of SAP procedures must be reduced by approximately 20% for a clinically appreciable improvement in detection of visual field change. Analysis similar to that demonstrated can measure the improvement required of new procedures, assisting in cost-benefit assessment for the adoption of new techniques, before lengthy and expensive clinical trials.

show abstract

Development and Evaluation of a Contrast Sensitivity Perimetry Test for Patients with Glaucoma

Abstract: The implementation of CSP was successful in reducing test-retest variability in glaucomatous defects. CSP was in general agreement with CAP in terms of depth of defect and was in better agreement than CAP with HRT-determined rim area.

Cited by 48 publications

References 21 publications

Choice of Stimulus Range and Size Can Reduce Test-Retest Variability in Glaucomatous Visual Field Defects

Choice of Stimulus Range and Size Can Reduce Test-Retest Variability in Glaucomatous Visual Field Defects

Spatio-temporal Contrast Sensitivity in the Cardinal Directions of the Colour Space. A Review

What Reduction in Standard Automated Perimetry Variability Would Improve the Detection of Visual Field Progression?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About