Learning Effect and Repeatability of Automated Kinetic Perimetry in Healthy Participants

Hirasawa, Kazunori; Shoji, Nobuyuki

doi:10.3109/02713683.2014.888450

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The learning effect on the mean sensitivity by performing standard automated perimetry is well described in the literature in cases of normal and primary open-angle glaucoma [5,6,[16][17][18][19][20]. In our study, there was no significant change in mean sensitivity during the three examinations.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

“…In contrast to our results, Weinglass et al [4] stated that older participants forgot the positive learning effect of the previous examination over a short period (less than a month). These results could also be attributed to the correlation of the learning effect with factors other than age, as shown in several studies in the literature [16][17][18][19].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

“…Several studies showed that the individual experience influences the results of standard automated perimetry [5,6,[16][17][18][19][20]. In our study, all individuals had no previous experience with any type of microperimetry.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Retinal Sensitivity and Fixation Stability Changes during Repeated Microperimetry

Szepessy¹,

Barboni²,

Nagy³

et al. 2017

J Clin Exp Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To determine and compare the intersession test-retest variability of different microperimetric parameters in healthy volunteers and age-related macular degeneration (AMD) patients by MAIA microperimetry.Methods: Twenty-four eyes of 12 healthy volunteers and 22 eyes of 11 AMD patients were included in this study. Microperimetry examinations were performed three times on each eye of all participants by MAIA microperimetry (CenterVue, Padova, Italy). The second measurement was performed on the same day and the third measurement one week after the first test. Retinal light sensitivity, stability of fixation, and macular integrity were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed by Microsoft Excel software and StatSoft Statistica software.Results: During the examinations, the average threshold had not changed significantly (p>0.475) in time in healthy and AMD patients. Fixation stability was relatively constant (nearly 100%) in healthy subjects as compared to the increase in the improving eye condition of AMD patients (p=0.042). Macular integrity was stable in both groups during the examinations. Conclusion:A learning effect was found in fixation stability of AMD patients by MAIA microperimetry. The improvement in fixation stability might be considered, especially prior to biofeedback training protocols in AMD patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Retinal Sensitivity and Fixation Stability Changes during Repeated Microperimetry

Szepessy¹,

Barboni²,

Nagy³

et al. 2017

J Clin Exp Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…17,18 The other explanation is the learning effect which is an important issue in many psychophysical tests. Several studies showed that the individual experience influences the results of standard-automated perimetry 19,20 , but the learning effect using microperimetry is not well established. Previously, an improvement of the macular sensitivity in a second examination in healthy subjects was reported and also in AMD patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retinal Function in Patients with Adalimumab Treatment: Long-term Follow-up with Microperimetry

Szepessy

Barboni

Farkas

et al. 2019

Ocular Immunology and Inflammation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To examine the effects of a biological treatment (adalimumab) on visual function in patients with ankylosing spondylitis and in uveitic patients without macular edema during one-year treatment with adalimumab. Methods: Sixteen eyes of eight consecutive Caucasian patients treated with adalimumab were followed up using microperimetry (MAIA; CenterVue, Padova, Italy). Five patients had ankylosing spondylitis without uveitis, three patients had panuveitis without macular edema. Macular sensitivity and macular integrity were recorded. Results: During six-month follow-up, the average threshold did not change significantly (p = .649). Macular integrity was stable (p = .225). The macular sensitivity point analysis showed no significant effects (examination F(3,56) = 0.494 and p = .688; point*examination F(108,2016) = 0.688 and p = .994) during the follow-up. Conclusions: During one-year follow-up, adalimumab did not affect macular function, unlike the well-established maculopathy induced by hydroxychloroquine. Microperimetry may be considered when following-up macular function in patients undertaking adalimumab.

show abstract

“…To remove this bias, a few automated kinetic perimeters have been developed[ 5 – 8 ]. Using automated kinetic perimeters, researchers have been able to examine the optimal stimulus velocity[ 9 ], learning effect, and repeatability in normal participants[ 10 ], and to determine the effect of optical defocus on kinetic perimetry findings[ 11 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Different Levels of Intraocular Stray Light on Kinetic Perimetry Findings

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo evaluate the effect of different levels of intraocular stray light on kinetic perimetry findings.MethodsTwenty-five eyes of 25 healthy young participants were examined by automated kinetic perimetry (Octopus 900) using Goldmann stimuli III4e, I4e, I3e, I2e, and I1e. Each stimulus was presented with a velocity of 3°/s at 24 meridians with 15° intervals. Four levels of intraocular stray light were induced using non-white opacity filter (WOF) filters and WOFs applied to the clear plastic eye covers of the participants. The visual acuity, pupil diameter, isopter area, and kinetic sensitivity of each meridian were analyzed for each WOF density.ResultsVisual acuity deteriorated with increasing WOF densities (p < 0.01). With a visual acuity of 0.1 LogMAR units, the isopter areas for III4e, I4e, I3e, I2e, and I1e decreased by -32.7 degree2 (-0.2%), -255.7 degree2 (-2.6%), -381.2 degree2 (-6.2%), -314.8 degree2 (-12.8%), and -59.2 degree2 (-15.2%), respectively; kinetic sensitivity for those stimuli decreased by -0.1 degree (-0.1%), -0.8 degree (-1.4%), -1.6 degree (-3.7%), -2.7 degree (-9.7%), and -1.7 degree (-16.2%), respectively. The pupil diameter with each WOF density was not significantly different.ConclusionKinetic perimetry measurements with a high-intensity stimulus (i.e., III4e) were unaffected by intraocular stray light. In contrast, measurements with the I4e, I3e, I2e, and I1e stimuli, especially I2e and I1e, were affected. Changes in the shape of the isopter resulting from opacity must be monitored, especially in cases of smaller and lower-intensity stimuli.

show abstract

Learning Effect and Repeatability of Automated Kinetic Perimetry in Healthy Participants

Cited by 15 publications

References 31 publications

Retinal Sensitivity and Fixation Stability Changes during Repeated Microperimetry

Retinal Sensitivity and Fixation Stability Changes during Repeated Microperimetry

Retinal Function in Patients with Adalimumab Treatment: Long-term Follow-up with Microperimetry

Effects of Different Levels of Intraocular Stray Light on Kinetic Perimetry Findings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About