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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Smith, Travis B., Smith, Ning, Weleber, Richard G.
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