Cargando…
Differences in the Relation Between Perimetric Sensitivity and Variability Between Locations Across the Visual Field
PURPOSE: Perimetric sensitivities become more variable with glaucomatous functional loss. This study examines the extent to which this relation varies between locations, and whether this can be predicted by eccentricity-related differences in spatial summation. METHODS: Longitudinal series of visual...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6054428/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30029253 http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/iovs.18-24303 |
Sumario: | PURPOSE: Perimetric sensitivities become more variable with glaucomatous functional loss. This study examines the extent to which this relation varies between locations, and whether this can be predicted by eccentricity-related differences in spatial summation. METHODS: Longitudinal series of visual fields from standard automated perimetry were obtained from participants with suspected or extant glaucoma. For each location in the 24-2 visual field, heterogeneous fixed-effects models were fit to the data, assuming that variability increased exponentially as sensitivity decreased. The predicted variability at each location was calculated when sensitivity was either 30 dB or 25 dB. RESULTS: Variability significantly increased with damage at all 52 locations. When sensitivity was 30 dB, variability increased with eccentricity, with P = 0.0003. The average SD was 1.54 dB at the four most central locations, versus 1.74 dB at the most peripheral locations. When sensitivity was 25 dB, variability did not vary predictably with eccentricity, with P = 0.340. The average SD was 2.36 dB at the four central locations, versus 2.24 dB at the most peripheral locations. CONCLUSIONS: The relation between sensitivity and variability differed by eccentricity. Among healthy locations, variability was lower centrally, where the stimulus size is larger than Ricco's area, than peripherally. Among damaged locations, variability did not systematically vary with eccentricity. This could be because Ricco's area expands in glaucoma, such that stimuli were now smaller than this area at all locations. |
---|