Normal Values for the Full Visual Field, Corrected for Age- and Reaction Time, Using Semiautomated Kinetic Testing on the Octopus 900 Perimeter

Abstract

PurposeTo determine normal values of the visual field (VF), corrected for age and reaction time (RT) for semiautomated kinetic perimetry (SKP) on the Octopus 900 perimeter, create a model describing the age-dependency of these values, and assess test–retest reliability for each isopter.MethodsEighty-six eyes of 86 ophthalmologically healthy subjects (age 11–79 years, 34 males, 52 females) underwent full-field kinetic perimetry with the Octopus 900 instrument. Stimulus size, luminance, velocity, meridional angle, subject age, and their interactions, were used to create a smooth multiple regression mathematical model (V/4e, III/4e, I/4e, I/3e, I/2e, I/1e, and I/1a isopters). Fourteen subjects (2 from each of 7 age groups) were evaluated on three separate sessions to assess test–retest reliability of the isopters. Reaction time (RT) was tested by presenting 12 designated RT-vectors between 10° and 20° within the seeing areas for the III/4e isopter (stimulus velocity, 3°/second). Four RT- vectors were presented at the nasal (0° or 180°), superotemporal (45°), and inferior (270°) meridians.ResultsThe model fit was excellent (r2 = 0.94). The test–retest variability was less than 5°, and the median decrease in this deviation attributed to aging, per decade, for all age groups and for all stimulus sizes was 0.8°. No significant learning effect was observed for any age group or isopter.ConclusionAge-corrected and RT-corrected normative threshold values for full-field kinetic perimetry can be adequately described by a smooth multiple linear regression mathematical model.Translational RelevanceA description of the entire kinetic VF is useful for assessing a full characterization of VF sensitivity, determining function losses associated with ocular and neurologic diseases, and for providing a more comprehensive analysis of structure–function relationships.

Monitoring the visual field of a patient with secondary pseudotumour cerebri syndrome due to one-sided lymphadenectomy and internal jugular vein ligature — case report

“…Kinetic testing is more sensitive for detecting peripheral VF defects, less time-consuming, and more efficient for detection and monitoring progression of large VF defects compared with conventional automated static perimetry. Additionally, it provides more interaction between the examiner and the patient during testing [2]. However, there is the need for a skilled technician, difficulties in quantifying area of isopters, challenges in defining serial changes over time, and a lack of standardisation of stimulus direction and speed that can introduce human bias.…”

“…SKP allows computer-controlled standardised presentation over the entire VF, for any chosen Goldmann stimulus size, intensity combination, and in any direction. In addition, the starting and ending points for the stimulus vectors are predefined, and there is a constant angular velocity [2].…”

“…Another advantage of kinetic testing using SKP is the capacity to assess the reaction time (RT) for the subject for each VF session. On the basis of the individual RT of the subject we can correct the position of the response [2].…”

“…Semi-automated kinetic perimetry (SKP) provides a method for assessment of the peripheral visual field with up to 90 degrees of eccentricity us-ing Goldmann stimuli moved with constant angular velocity. The development of SKP examination resulted in greater standardisation, consistency, analysis, reliability, and interpretation of kinetic visual field (VF) results in neuroophthalmology [2].…”

Study of Optimal Perimetric Testing In Children (OPTIC): development and feasibility of the kinetic perimetry reliability measure (KPRM)

“…The relationship between KPRM and EBAR was examined quantitatively and additional examiner comments were scrutinised to explore any discrepancy between the measures. The maximum ‘normal’ test-retest variability for good-quality assessments was taken as 5° 8. Thus, KPRM and EBAR scores were deemed discordant if a child rated with good EBAR scored >5 on KPRM and, conversely, if those rated as poor EBAR had an associated KPRM score of <5.…”