Cargando…

Comparison of unifocal, flicker, and multifocal pupil perimetry methods in healthy adults

To this day, the most popular method of choice for testing visual field defects (VFDs) is subjective standard automated perimetry. However, a need has arisen for an objective, and less time-consuming method. Pupil perimetry (PP), which uses pupil responses to onsets of bright stimuli as indications...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Portengen, Brendan L., Porro, Giorgio L., Imhof, Saskia M., Naber, Marnix
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9424968/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35998063
http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/jov.22.9.7
_version_ 1784778343470596096
author Portengen, Brendan L.
Porro, Giorgio L.
Imhof, Saskia M.
Naber, Marnix
author_facet Portengen, Brendan L.
Porro, Giorgio L.
Imhof, Saskia M.
Naber, Marnix
author_sort Portengen, Brendan L.
collection PubMed
description To this day, the most popular method of choice for testing visual field defects (VFDs) is subjective standard automated perimetry. However, a need has arisen for an objective, and less time-consuming method. Pupil perimetry (PP), which uses pupil responses to onsets of bright stimuli as indications of visual sensitivity, fulfills these requirements. It is currently unclear which PP method most accurately detects VFDs. Hence, the purpose of this study is to compare three PP methods for measuring pupil responsiveness. Unifocal (UPP), flicker (FPP), and multifocal PP (MPP) were compared by monocularly testing the inner 60 degrees of vision at 44 wedge-shaped locations. The visual field (VF) sensitivity of 18 healthy adult participants (mean age and SD 23.7 ± 3.0 years) was assessed, each under three different artificially simulated scotomas for approximately 4.5 minutes each (i.e. stimulus was not or only partially present) conditions: quadrantanopia, a 20-, and 10-degree diameter scotoma. Stimuli that were fully present on the screen evoked strongest, partially present stimuli evoked weaker, and absent stimuli evoked the weakest pupil responses in all methods. However, the pupil responses in FPP showed stronger discriminative power for present versus absent trials (median d-prime = 6.26 ± 2.49, area under the curve [AUC] = 1.0 ± 0) and MPP performed better for fully present versus partially present trials (median d-prime = 1.19 ± 0.62, AUC = 0.80 ± 0.11). We conducted the first in-depth comparison of three PP methods. Gaze-contingent FPP had best discriminative power for large (absolute) scotomas, whereas MPP performed slightly better with small (relative) scotomas.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9424968
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94249682022-08-31 Comparison of unifocal, flicker, and multifocal pupil perimetry methods in healthy adults Portengen, Brendan L. Porro, Giorgio L. Imhof, Saskia M. Naber, Marnix J Vis Article To this day, the most popular method of choice for testing visual field defects (VFDs) is subjective standard automated perimetry. However, a need has arisen for an objective, and less time-consuming method. Pupil perimetry (PP), which uses pupil responses to onsets of bright stimuli as indications of visual sensitivity, fulfills these requirements. It is currently unclear which PP method most accurately detects VFDs. Hence, the purpose of this study is to compare three PP methods for measuring pupil responsiveness. Unifocal (UPP), flicker (FPP), and multifocal PP (MPP) were compared by monocularly testing the inner 60 degrees of vision at 44 wedge-shaped locations. The visual field (VF) sensitivity of 18 healthy adult participants (mean age and SD 23.7 ± 3.0 years) was assessed, each under three different artificially simulated scotomas for approximately 4.5 minutes each (i.e. stimulus was not or only partially present) conditions: quadrantanopia, a 20-, and 10-degree diameter scotoma. Stimuli that were fully present on the screen evoked strongest, partially present stimuli evoked weaker, and absent stimuli evoked the weakest pupil responses in all methods. However, the pupil responses in FPP showed stronger discriminative power for present versus absent trials (median d-prime = 6.26 ± 2.49, area under the curve [AUC] = 1.0 ± 0) and MPP performed better for fully present versus partially present trials (median d-prime = 1.19 ± 0.62, AUC = 0.80 ± 0.11). We conducted the first in-depth comparison of three PP methods. Gaze-contingent FPP had best discriminative power for large (absolute) scotomas, whereas MPP performed slightly better with small (relative) scotomas. The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2022-08-23 /pmc/articles/PMC9424968/ /pubmed/35998063 http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/jov.22.9.7 Text en Copyright 2022 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
spellingShingle Article
Portengen, Brendan L.
Porro, Giorgio L.
Imhof, Saskia M.
Naber, Marnix
Comparison of unifocal, flicker, and multifocal pupil perimetry methods in healthy adults
title Comparison of unifocal, flicker, and multifocal pupil perimetry methods in healthy adults
title_full Comparison of unifocal, flicker, and multifocal pupil perimetry methods in healthy adults
title_fullStr Comparison of unifocal, flicker, and multifocal pupil perimetry methods in healthy adults
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of unifocal, flicker, and multifocal pupil perimetry methods in healthy adults
title_short Comparison of unifocal, flicker, and multifocal pupil perimetry methods in healthy adults
title_sort comparison of unifocal, flicker, and multifocal pupil perimetry methods in healthy adults
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9424968/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35998063
http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/jov.22.9.7
work_keys_str_mv AT portengenbrendanl comparisonofunifocalflickerandmultifocalpupilperimetrymethodsinhealthyadults
AT porrogiorgiol comparisonofunifocalflickerandmultifocalpupilperimetrymethodsinhealthyadults
AT imhofsaskiam comparisonofunifocalflickerandmultifocalpupilperimetrymethodsinhealthyadults
AT nabermarnix comparisonofunifocalflickerandmultifocalpupilperimetrymethodsinhealthyadults