Cargando…

Response time and response time variability as indicators of response quality during static automated perimetry

PURPOSE: Perimetry is a both demanding and strenuous examination method that is often accompanied by signs of fatigue, leading to false responses and thus incorrect results. Therefore, it is essential to monitor the response quality. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the response time (RT) a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ungewiss, Judith, Mallot, Hanspeter A., Schiefer, Ulrich
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8850211/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34515839
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00417-021-05349-z
_version_ 1784652544216137728
author Ungewiss, Judith
Mallot, Hanspeter A.
Schiefer, Ulrich
author_facet Ungewiss, Judith
Mallot, Hanspeter A.
Schiefer, Ulrich
author_sort Ungewiss, Judith
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Perimetry is a both demanding and strenuous examination method that is often accompanied by signs of fatigue, leading to false responses and thus incorrect results. Therefore, it is essential to monitor the response quality. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the response time (RT) and its variability (RTV) as quality indicators during static automated perimetry. METHODS: Size III Goldmann stimuli (25.7′) were shown with the OCTOPUS 900 perimeter in four visual field locations with 13 different stimulus luminance levels (0.04–160 cd/m(2)). An increased rate of false-positive and false-negative catch trials (25% each) served to monitor the response quality simultaneously together with response time recording. Data evaluation was divided into global and individual analysis. For global analysis, the agreement indices (AI, agreement between time periods with an increased number of false responses to catch trials and time periods with pathological response to time-based values set into relation to time periods in which only one of the two criteria was considered pathological) and for individual analysis, the Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated. Ophthalmologically normal subjects with a visual acuity ≥ 0.8, and a maximum spherical/cylindrical ametropia of ± 8.00/2.50 dpt were included. RESULTS: Forty-eight subjects (18 males, 30 females, age 22–78 years) were examined. The total number of false responses to catch trials was (median/maximum): 6/82. RT and RTV were compared to the occurrence of incorrect responses to catch trials. The resulting individual Spearman correlation coefficients (median/maximum) were for RT: ρ(RT) = 0.05/0.35 and for RTV: ρ(RTV) = 0.27/0.61. The global analysis of the RTV showed agreement indices (median/maximum) of AI(RTV) = 0.14/0.47. CONCLUSIONS: According to this study, an increased portion of catch trials is suitable as a verification tool for possible response quality indicators. The RTV is a promising parameter for indicating the response quality. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00417-021-05349-z.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8850211
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88502112022-02-23 Response time and response time variability as indicators of response quality during static automated perimetry Ungewiss, Judith Mallot, Hanspeter A. Schiefer, Ulrich Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Glaucoma PURPOSE: Perimetry is a both demanding and strenuous examination method that is often accompanied by signs of fatigue, leading to false responses and thus incorrect results. Therefore, it is essential to monitor the response quality. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the response time (RT) and its variability (RTV) as quality indicators during static automated perimetry. METHODS: Size III Goldmann stimuli (25.7′) were shown with the OCTOPUS 900 perimeter in four visual field locations with 13 different stimulus luminance levels (0.04–160 cd/m(2)). An increased rate of false-positive and false-negative catch trials (25% each) served to monitor the response quality simultaneously together with response time recording. Data evaluation was divided into global and individual analysis. For global analysis, the agreement indices (AI, agreement between time periods with an increased number of false responses to catch trials and time periods with pathological response to time-based values set into relation to time periods in which only one of the two criteria was considered pathological) and for individual analysis, the Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated. Ophthalmologically normal subjects with a visual acuity ≥ 0.8, and a maximum spherical/cylindrical ametropia of ± 8.00/2.50 dpt were included. RESULTS: Forty-eight subjects (18 males, 30 females, age 22–78 years) were examined. The total number of false responses to catch trials was (median/maximum): 6/82. RT and RTV were compared to the occurrence of incorrect responses to catch trials. The resulting individual Spearman correlation coefficients (median/maximum) were for RT: ρ(RT) = 0.05/0.35 and for RTV: ρ(RTV) = 0.27/0.61. The global analysis of the RTV showed agreement indices (median/maximum) of AI(RTV) = 0.14/0.47. CONCLUSIONS: According to this study, an increased portion of catch trials is suitable as a verification tool for possible response quality indicators. The RTV is a promising parameter for indicating the response quality. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00417-021-05349-z. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-09-13 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8850211/ /pubmed/34515839 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00417-021-05349-z Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Glaucoma
Ungewiss, Judith
Mallot, Hanspeter A.
Schiefer, Ulrich
Response time and response time variability as indicators of response quality during static automated perimetry
title Response time and response time variability as indicators of response quality during static automated perimetry
title_full Response time and response time variability as indicators of response quality during static automated perimetry
title_fullStr Response time and response time variability as indicators of response quality during static automated perimetry
title_full_unstemmed Response time and response time variability as indicators of response quality during static automated perimetry
title_short Response time and response time variability as indicators of response quality during static automated perimetry
title_sort response time and response time variability as indicators of response quality during static automated perimetry
topic Glaucoma
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8850211/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34515839
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00417-021-05349-z
work_keys_str_mv AT ungewissjudith responsetimeandresponsetimevariabilityasindicatorsofresponsequalityduringstaticautomatedperimetry
AT mallothanspetera responsetimeandresponsetimevariabilityasindicatorsofresponsequalityduringstaticautomatedperimetry
AT schieferulrich responsetimeandresponsetimevariabilityasindicatorsofresponsequalityduringstaticautomatedperimetry