Cargando…
Comparison of nonparametric methods for static visual field interpolation
Visual field testing with standard automated perimetry produces a sparse representation of a sensitivity map, sometimes called the hill of vision (HOV), for the retina. Interpolation or resampling of these data is important for visual display, clinical interpretation, and quantitative analysis. Our...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5222903/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27106755 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11517-016-1485-x |
_version_ | 1782493078689415168 |
---|---|
author | Smith, Travis B. Smith, Ning Weleber, Richard G. |
author_facet | Smith, Travis B. Smith, Ning Weleber, Richard G. |
author_sort | Smith, Travis B. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Visual field testing with standard automated perimetry produces a sparse representation of a sensitivity map, sometimes called the hill of vision (HOV), for the retina. Interpolation or resampling of these data is important for visual display, clinical interpretation, and quantitative analysis. Our objective was to compare several popular interpolation methods in terms of their utility to visual field testing. We evaluated nine nonparametric scattered data interpolation algorithms and compared their performances in normal subjects and patients with retinal degeneration. Interpolator performance was assessed by leave-one-out cross-validation accuracy and high-density interpolated HOV surface smoothness. Radial basis function (RBF) interpolation with a linear kernel yielded the best accuracy, with an overall mean absolute error (MAE) of 2.01 dB and root-mean-square error (RMSE) of 3.20 dB that were significantly better than all other methods (p ≤ 0.003). Thin-plate spline RBF interpolation yielded the best smoothness results (p < 0.001) and scored well for accuracy with overall MAE and RMSE values of 2.08 and 3.28 dB, respectively. Natural neighbor interpolation, which may be a more readily accessible method to some practitioners, also performed well. While no interpolator will be universally optimal, these interpolators are good choices among nonparametric methods. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5222903 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-52229032017-01-19 Comparison of nonparametric methods for static visual field interpolation Smith, Travis B. Smith, Ning Weleber, Richard G. Med Biol Eng Comput Original Article Visual field testing with standard automated perimetry produces a sparse representation of a sensitivity map, sometimes called the hill of vision (HOV), for the retina. Interpolation or resampling of these data is important for visual display, clinical interpretation, and quantitative analysis. Our objective was to compare several popular interpolation methods in terms of their utility to visual field testing. We evaluated nine nonparametric scattered data interpolation algorithms and compared their performances in normal subjects and patients with retinal degeneration. Interpolator performance was assessed by leave-one-out cross-validation accuracy and high-density interpolated HOV surface smoothness. Radial basis function (RBF) interpolation with a linear kernel yielded the best accuracy, with an overall mean absolute error (MAE) of 2.01 dB and root-mean-square error (RMSE) of 3.20 dB that were significantly better than all other methods (p ≤ 0.003). Thin-plate spline RBF interpolation yielded the best smoothness results (p < 0.001) and scored well for accuracy with overall MAE and RMSE values of 2.08 and 3.28 dB, respectively. Natural neighbor interpolation, which may be a more readily accessible method to some practitioners, also performed well. While no interpolator will be universally optimal, these interpolators are good choices among nonparametric methods. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2016-04-22 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5222903/ /pubmed/27106755 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11517-016-1485-x Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Smith, Travis B. Smith, Ning Weleber, Richard G. Comparison of nonparametric methods for static visual field interpolation |
title | Comparison of nonparametric methods for static visual field interpolation |
title_full | Comparison of nonparametric methods for static visual field interpolation |
title_fullStr | Comparison of nonparametric methods for static visual field interpolation |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of nonparametric methods for static visual field interpolation |
title_short | Comparison of nonparametric methods for static visual field interpolation |
title_sort | comparison of nonparametric methods for static visual field interpolation |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5222903/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27106755 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11517-016-1485-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT smithtravisb comparisonofnonparametricmethodsforstaticvisualfieldinterpolation AT smithning comparisonofnonparametricmethodsforstaticvisualfieldinterpolation AT weleberrichardg comparisonofnonparametricmethodsforstaticvisualfieldinterpolation |