Compass fundus automated perimetry

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 481-490 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Fogagnolo ◽  
Maurizio Digiuni ◽  
Giovanni Montesano ◽  
Chiara Rui ◽  
Marco Morales ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Field Testing ◽  
Automated Perimetry ◽  
Standard Automated Perimetry ◽  
Gaze Tracking ◽  
Intrinsic Factors ◽  
Global Indices ◽  
Humphrey Field Analyzer ◽  
The Impact

Background: Compass (CenterVue, Padova, Italy) is a fundus automated perimeter which has been introduced in the clinical practice for glaucoma management in 2014. The aim of the article is to review Compass literature, comparing its performances against Humphrey Field Analyzer (Zeiss Humphrey Systems, Dublin, CA, USA). Results: Analyses on both normal and glaucoma subjects agree on the fact that Humphrey Field Analyzer and Compass are interchangeable, as the difference of their global indices is largely inferior than test -retest variability for Humphrey Field Analyzer. Compass also enables interesting opportunities for the assessment of morphology, and the integration between morphology and function on the same device. Conclusion: Visual field testing by standard automated perimetry is limited by a series of intrinsic factors related to the psychophysical nature of the examination; recent papers suggest that gaze tracking is closely related to visual field reliability. Compass, thanks to a retinal tracker and to the active dislocation of stimuli to compensate for eye movements, is able to provide visual fields unaffected by fixation instability. Also, the instrument is a true colour, confocal retinoscope and obtains high-quality 60° × 60° photos of the central retina and stereo-photos details of the optic nerve. Overlapping the image of the retina to field sensitivity may be useful in ascertaining the impact of comorbidities. In addition, the recent introduction of stereoscopic photography may be very useful for better clinical examination.

scholarly journals Impact of Visual Field Testing on Intraocular Pressure Change Trends in Healthy People and Glaucoma Patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mengwei Li ◽  
Bingxin Zheng ◽  
Qi Wang ◽  
Xinghuai Sun
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Visual Field ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Healthy Subjects ◽  
Open Angle Glaucoma ◽  
Field Testing ◽  
Automated Perimetry ◽  
Open Angle ◽  
Standard Automated Perimetry ◽  
The Impact

Purpose. To compare the impact of visual field (VF) testing on intraocular pressure (IOP) change trends between healthy subjects and glaucoma patients. Methods. We recruited healthy volunteer subjects who did not have previous ocular diseases and open-angle glaucoma patients who were medically controlled well. IOP in both eyes of each participant was measured by using a noncontact tonometer at five time points: before, immediately after (0 minute), and 10, 30, and 60 minutes after the standard automated perimetry. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyze the effect of VF testing on IOP change trends in healthy and glaucoma eyes. Results. Forty healthy subjects (80 eyes) and 31 open-angle glaucoma patients (62 eyes) were included for the study. The baseline IOP of healthy and glaucoma eyes was 16.11 ± 3.01 mmHg and 15.78 ± 3.57 mmHg, respectively. After the VF testing, the IOP in healthy eyes was decreased by 1.5% at 0 minute, 6.5% at 10 minutes (P<0.001), 6.6% at 30 minutes (P<0.001), and 7.0% at 1 hour (P<0.001), indicating that this reduction was sustained for at least 1 hour. However, the IOP in glaucoma eyes was increased by 12.7% at 0 minute (P<0.001) and, then, returned towards initial values 1 hour after the VF testing. Conclusions. IOP change trends after VF field testing between healthy subjects and glaucoma patients were quite different. VF testing led to a mild and relatively sustained IOP decrease in healthy subjects, whereas IOP in open-angle glaucoma patients tended to significantly increase immediately after VF testing and, then, returned to pretest values after 1 hour. These findings indicate that the factors of VF testing should be considered in the clinical IOP measurements.

scholarly journals Estimating Rates of Progression and Predicting Future Visual Fields in Glaucoma Using a Deep Variational Autoencoder

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel I. Berchuck ◽  
Sayan Mukherjee ◽  
Felipe A. Medeiros
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Learning Algorithm ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Visual Field Loss ◽  
Absolute Error ◽  
Rate Of Change ◽  
Mean Deviation ◽  
Automated Perimetry ◽  
Standard Automated Perimetry ◽  
Deep Learning Algorithm

AbstractIn this manuscript we develop a deep learning algorithm to improve estimation of rates of progression and prediction of future patterns of visual field loss in glaucoma. A generalized variational auto-encoder (VAE) was trained to learn a low-dimensional representation of standard automated perimetry (SAP) visual fields using 29,161 fields from 3,832 patients. The VAE was trained on a 90% sample of the data, with randomization at the patient level. Using the remaining 10%, rates of progression and predictions were generated, with comparisons to SAP mean deviation (MD) rates and point-wise (PW) regression predictions, respectively. The longitudinal rate of change through the VAE latent space (e.g., with eight dimensions) detected a significantly higher proportion of progression than MD at two (25% vs. 9%) and four (35% vs 15%) years from baseline. Early on, VAE improved prediction over PW, with significantly smaller mean absolute error in predicting the 4th, 6th and 8th visits from the first three (e.g., visit eight: VAE8: 5.14 dB vs. PW: 8.07 dB; P < 0.001). A deep VAE can be used for assessing both rates and trajectories of progression in glaucoma, with the additional benefit of being a generative technique capable of predicting future patterns of visual field damage.

Short-Wavelength Automated Perimetry and Neuroretinal Rim Area

2000 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.M. Larrosa ◽  
V. Polo ◽  
L. Pablo ◽  
I. Pinilla ◽  
F.J. Fernandez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Visual Field ◽  
Short Wavelength ◽  
Selection Criteria ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Automated Perimetry ◽  
Neuroretinal Rim ◽  
Humphrey Field Analyzer ◽  
Neuroretinal Rim Area

Purpose To determine the correlation between neuroretinal rim area and functional losses detected by short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP) in a population of patients with suspected glaucoma. Methods Forty-two eyes of 42 ocular hypertensive subjects who met the selection criteria (intraocular pressure greater than 21 mm of Hg and normal conventional visual fields) were studied. A planimetric optic nerve head study was performed, determining the total and sectorized neuroretinal rim areas. SWAP was also done, with a modified Humphrey field analyzer. Results There were no significant correlations between the neuroretinal rim areas and the global perimetric parameters. However, the correlations between the inferotemporal neuroretinal rim area and some superonasal visual field regions (areas 3 and 4) were significant. Conclusions There is a relation in the topography of some visual field areas assessed by SWAP and the inferotemporal neuroretinal rim area, which may play a role in the diagnosis and follow-up of suspected glaucoma.

scholarly journals Mapping Visual Field Defects With fMRI – Impact of Approach and Experimental Conditions

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gokulraj T. Prabhakaran ◽  
Khaldoon O. Al-Nosairy ◽  
Claus Tempelmann ◽  
Hagen Thieme ◽  
Michael B. Hoffmann
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Color Change ◽  
Visual Stimulation ◽  
Block Design ◽  
Visual Field Defects ◽  
Automated Perimetry ◽  
Standard Automated Perimetry ◽  
Experimental Conditions ◽  
The Impact

Current initiatives to restore vision emphasize the need for objective assessments of visual field (VF) defects as pursued with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) approaches. Here, we compared population receptive field (pRF) mapping-based VF reconstructions to an fMRI method that uses more robust visual stimulation (on-off block design) in combination with individualized anatomy-driven retinotopic atlas-information (atlas-based VF). We investigated participants with sizable peripheral VF-deficits due to advanced glaucoma (n = 4) or retinitis pigmentosa (RP; n = 2) and controls (n = 6) with simulated scotoma. We obtained (1) standard automated perimetry (SAP) data as reference VFs and 3T fMRI data for (2) pRF-mapping [8-direction bar stimulus, fixation color change task] and (3) block-design full-field stimulation [8-direction drifting contrast patterns during (a) passive viewing (PV) and (b) one-back-task (OBT; reporting successions of identical motion directions) to probe the impact of previously reported task-related unspecific visual cortex activations]. Correspondence measures between the SAP and fMRI-based VFs were accuracy, assisted by sensitivity and specificity. We found an accuracy of pRF-based VF from V1 in patients [median: 0.62] that was similar to previous reports and increased by adding V2 and V3 to the analysis [0.74]. In comparison to the pRF-based VF, equivalent accuracies were obtained for the atlas-based VF for both PV [0.67] and, unexpectedly, the OBT [0.59], where, however, unspecific cortical activations were reflected by a reduction in sensitivity [0.71 (PV) and 0.35 (OBT)]. In conclusion, in patients with peripheral VF-defects, we demonstrate that previous fMRI procedures to obtain VF-estimates might be enhanced by: (1) pooling V1-V3 to enhance accuracy; (2) reporting sensitivity and specificity measures to increase transparency of the VF-reconstruction metric; (3) applying atlas-based procedures, if pRF-based VFs are not available or difficult to obtain; and (4) giving, counter-intuitively, preference to PV. These findings are expected to provide guidance to overcome current limitations of translating fMRI-based methods to a clinical work-up.

Detecting Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma – Using the Right Tools for the Job

2013 ◽  
Vol 07 (01) ◽  
pp. 20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke J Saunders ◽  
Richard A Russell ◽  
David P Crabb ◽  
◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Field Measurements ◽  
Automated Perimetry ◽  
Standard Automated Perimetry ◽  
Visual Disability ◽  
New Research ◽  
The Right ◽  
Over Time

Monitoring disease progression is at the centre of managing a patient with glaucoma. This article focuses specifically on how visual field measurements from standard automated perimetry (SAP) can be monitored over time. Various options for analysis on the Humphrey and Octopus perimeters are discussed, from summary indices to event and trend-based analyses; their respective merits and flaws evaluated. It is strongly recommended that quantitative analysis methods and software are used in assessing progression, as variability in threshold measurements makes detecting true deterioration non-trivial. Recommendations on the frequency of visual fields that should be taken per year are also discussed. The article concludes by putting the spotlight on new research being undertaken to improve the methods of measuring and predicting progression, as well as relating visual fields to patient visual disability and quality of life.

Retrogeniculate Visual Field Defects

Visual Fields ◽  
2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas R. Hedges III
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Vision Loss ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Field Testing ◽  
Visual Field Defects ◽  
Automated Perimetry ◽  
Loss Of Vision ◽  
Data Points ◽  
Field Defects ◽  
Macular Sparing

Automated perimetry has changed visual field testing considerably in recent years. What was considered an art has become an exercise in interpreting a set of data points obtained mechanically. Automated perimetry saves ophthalmologists time, which ideally should allow for more visual fields to be obtained on patients with unexplained vision loss. However, one must still keep in mind that automated perimetry still depends on the subjective responses from the patient. More important, automated perimetry has made interpretation of visual field defects, especially those due to occipital lesions, more difficult. For example, macular sparing may not be reflected, especially with programs limited to the central 24° or 30°. A 10° field may be required to show macular sparing. Also, sparing or involvement of the temporal crescent will not be shown with 24° or 30° visual fields. The limitation of most programs may lead to the appearance of incongruity when in fact the field is indeed congruous. Sometimes, a small homonymous hemianopic scotoma will be detected when one eye is tested but will be completely missed when the other eye is tested, giving the false impression that the visual loss is monocular. This is especially problematic if the patient also falsely interprets his or her homonymous loss of vision as monocular. Such individuals may complain of loss of vision in one eye when in fact it is one half of their visual field that is defective. The strategy of automated testing on either side the vertical and horizontal meridians may lead to the false impression that field defects respect the vertical or horizontal meridian when they do not. Automated perimetry should make it possible to test more patients with unexplained vision loss, but all automated visual fields must be interpreted with caution and, when necessary, substantiated with some other method, such as the tangent screen, which remains the most powerful method of detecting the size, shape, and density of visual field defects. Because most ophthalmologists no longer use tangent screen testing, at least an Amlser grid should be used to qualify the nature of a paracentral visual field defect.

scholarly journals Computational Methods for Continuous Eye-Tracking Perimetry Based on Spatio-Temporal Integration and a Deep Recurrent Neural Network

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Grillini ◽  
Alex Hernández-García ◽  
Remco J. Renken ◽  
Giorgia Demaria ◽  
Frans W. Cornelissen
Keyword(s):  
Neural Network ◽  
Visual Field ◽  
Eye Tracking ◽  
Recurrent Neural Network ◽  
Temporal Integration ◽  
Automated Perimetry ◽  
Standard Automated Perimetry ◽  
Gaze Tracking ◽  
Deep Recurrent Neural Network ◽  
Spatio Temporal

The measurement of retinal sensitivity at different visual field locations–perimetry–is a fundamental procedure in ophthalmology. The most common technique for this scope, the Standard Automated Perimetry, suffers from several issues that make it less suitable to test specific clinical populations: it can be tedious, it requires motor manual feedback, and requires from the patient high levels of compliance. Previous studies attempted to create user-friendlier alternatives to Standard Automated Perimetry by employing eye movements reaction times as a substitute for manual responses while keeping the fixed-grid stimuli presentation typical of Standard Automated Perimetry. This approach, however, does not take advantage of the high spatial and temporal resolution enabled by the use of eye-tracking. In this study, we introduce a novel eye-tracking method to perform high-resolution perimetry. This method is based on the continuous gaze-tracking of a stimulus moving along a pseudo-random walk interleaved with saccadic jumps. We then propose two computational methods to obtain visual field maps from the continuous gaze-tracking data: the first is based on the spatio-temporal integration of ocular positional deviations using the threshold free cluster enhancement (TFCE) algorithm; the second is based on using simulated visual field defects to train a deep recurrent neural network (RNN). These two methods have complementary qualities: the TFCE is neurophysiologically plausible and its output significantly correlates with Standard Automated Perimetry performed with the Humphrey Field Analyzer, while the RNN accuracy significantly outperformed the TFCE in reconstructing the simulated scotomas but did not translate as well to the clinical data from glaucoma patients. While both of these methods require further optimization, they show the potential for a more patient-friendly alternative to Standard Automated Perimetry.

scholarly journals Computational methods for continuous eye-tracking perimetry based on spatio-temporal integration and a deep recurrent neural network

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Grillini ◽  
Alejandro Hernández-García ◽  
Remco J. Renken ◽  
Giorgia Demaria ◽  
Frans W. Cornelissen
Keyword(s):  
Neural Network ◽  
Visual Field ◽  
Eye Tracking ◽  
Computational Methods ◽  
Temporal Integration ◽  
Automated Perimetry ◽  
Standard Automated Perimetry ◽  
Gaze Tracking ◽  
Deep Recurrent Neural Network ◽  
Spatio Temporal

Perimetry, the mapping of the sensitivity of different visual field locations, is an essential procedure in ophthalmology. Unfortunately, standard automated perimetry (SAP), suffers from some practical issues: it can be tedious, requires manual feedback and a high level of patient compliance. These factors limit the effectiveness of perimetry in some clinical populations. In an attempt to remove some of these limitations, alternatives to SAP have been tried based on tracking eye movements. These new approaches have attempted to mimic SAP, thus presenting stimuli on a fixed grid, and replacing manual by ocular responses. While this solves some issues of SAP, these approaches hardly exploit the high spatial and temporal resolution facilitated by eye-tracking. In this study, we present two novel computational methods that do tap into this potential: (1) an analytic method based on the spatio-temporal integration of positional deviations by means of Threshold Free Cluster Enhancement (TFCE) and (2) a method based on training a recursive deep artificial neural network (RNN). We demonstrate that it is possible to reconstruct visual field maps based on continuous gaze-tracking data acquired in a relatively short amount of time.

SITA-Standard perimetry has better performance than FDT2 matrix perimetry for detecting glaucomatous progression

2018 ◽  
Vol 102 (10) ◽  
pp. 1396-1401
Author(s):  
Michael Wall ◽  
Chris A Johnson ◽  
K D Zamba
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Visual Field Loss ◽  
Detection Algorithm ◽  
Data Series ◽  
Automated Perimetry ◽  
Standard Automated Perimetry ◽  
Full Data ◽  
Visual Field Progression ◽  
Standard Testing ◽  
Humphrey Field Analyzer

PurposeThe Humphrey Matrix (FDT2) may be more sensitive in detecting glaucomatous visual field loss than SITA standard automated perimetry (SAP) performed on the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA). Therefore, FDT may be a good candidate to determine disease progression in patients with glaucoma. Our aim was to test the hypothesis that automated perimetry using the FDT2 would be equal to, or more effective than, HFA SITA-Standard, in identifying glaucomatous progression.MethodsOne hundred and twenty patients with glaucoma were tested twice at baseline and every 6 months for 4 years with HFA SITA-Standard and FDT2. FDT2 values were standardised to HFA SAP values. We used pointwise linear regression (PLR) over the full data series to identify glaucomatous progression and generated an array of results using three different criteria: (1) three or more clustered test locations progressing, (2) three or more non-clustered test locations progressing and (3) total number of progressing test locations. We compared HFA SAP and FDT2 for the number of locations signalled by the PLR detection algorithm.ResultsRegardless of the criteria, HFA SAP with SITA-Standard testing detected visual field progression at a higher rate than the FDT2 overall (P<0.001).ConclusionHFA SAP identifies glaucomatous visual field progression at a rate at least as high if not higher than FDT2.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document