Portable Perimetry Using Eye-Tracking on a Tablet Computer—A Feasibility Assessment

Purpose Visual field (VF) examination by standard automated perimetry (SAP) is an important method of clinical assessment. However, the complexity of the test, and its use of bulky, expensive equipment makes it impractical for case-finding. We propose and evaluate a new approach to paracentral VF assessment that combines an inexpensive eye-tracker with a portable tablet computer (“Eyecatcher”). Methods Twenty-four eyes from 12 glaucoma patients, and 12 eyes from six age-similar controls were examined. Participants were tested monocularly (once per eye), with both the novel Eyecatcher test and traditional SAP (HFA SITA standard 24-2). For Eyecatcher, the participant's task was to simply to look at a sequence of fixed-luminance dots, presented relative to the current point of fixation. Start and end fixations were used to determine locations where stimuli were seen/unseen, and to build a continuous map of sensitivity loss across a VF of approximately 20°. Results Eyecatcher was able to clearly separate patients from controls, and the results were consistent with those from traditional SAP. In particular, mean Eyecatcher scores were strongly correlated with mean deviation scores (r2 = 0.64, P < 0.001), and there was good concordance between corresponding VF locations (∼84%). Participants reported that Eyecatcher was more enjoyable, easier to perform, and less tiring than SAP (all P < 0.001). Conclusions Portable perimetry using an inexpensive eye-tracker and a tablet computer is feasible, although possible means of improvement are suggested. Translational Relevance Such a test could have significant utility as a case finding device.

[1]  L. Frisén Performance of a Rapid Rarebit Central-Vision Test with Optic Neuropathies , 2012, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[2]  Chris A Johnson,et al.  Performance of an iPad Application to Detect Moderate and Advanced Visual Field Loss in Nepal. , 2017, American journal of ophthalmology.

[3]  Michael Dorr,et al.  Visual Psychophysics and Physiological Optics Rapid and Reliable Assessment of the Contrast Sensitivity Function on an iPad , 2013 .

[4]  Terry L. Schwartz,et al.  Kinetic perimetry assessment of binocular visual field shape and size in young infants , 1987, Vision Research.

[5]  P. Brusini,et al.  Frequency doubling technology perimetry for detection of glaucomatous visual field loss. , 2000, American journal of ophthalmology.

[6]  M. L. Salvetat,et al.  Probing glaucoma visual damage by rarebit perimetry , 2005, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[7]  R P Mills,et al.  Screening for glaucoma with frequency-doubling technology and Damato campimetry. , 1999, Archives of ophthalmology.

[8]  B Thompson,et al.  An assessment of the iPad as a testing platform for distance visual acuity in adults , 2013, BMJ Open.

[9]  Geraint Rees,et al.  Clinically applicable deep learning for diagnosis and referral in retinal disease , 2018, Nature Medicine.

[10]  Ian J. Murray,et al.  Development and testing of an automated computer tablet-based method for self-testing of high and low contrast near visual acuity in ophthalmic patients , 2016, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[11]  C. Johnson,et al.  Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. , 1997, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[12]  Malcolm Ryan,et al.  Normative values for a tablet computer-based application to assess chromatic contrast sensitivity , 2018, Behavior research methods.

[13]  C. Matsumoto,et al.  Automated flicker perimetry in glaucoma using Octopus 311: a comparative study with the Humphrey Matrix. , 2006, Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica.

[14]  Alexander Klistorner,et al.  Performance of iPad‐based threshold perimetry in glaucoma and controls , 2018, Clinical & experimental ophthalmology.

[15]  Algis J. Vingrys,et al.  Validation of a Tablet as a Tangent Perimeter , 2016, Translational vision science & technology.

[16]  Antonios Perperidis,et al.  Feasibility, Accuracy, and Repeatability of Suprathreshold Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimetry , 2016, Translational vision science & technology.

[17]  David P Crabb,et al.  Disease severity in newly diagnosed glaucoma patients with visual field loss: trends from more than a decade of data , 2015, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[18]  Anders Heijl,et al.  Trained Artificial Neural Network for Glaucoma Diagnosis Using Visual Field Data: A Comparison With Conventional Algorithms , 2007, Journal of glaucoma.

[19]  C. Johnson,et al.  Frequency doubling perimetry and the detection of eye disease in the community. , 2000, Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society.

[20]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[21]  Angela L. Duckworth,et al.  Advanced, Analytic, Automated (AAA) Measurement of Engagement During Learning , 2017, Educational psychologist.

[22]  Yu Xiang George Kong,et al.  Can Home Monitoring Allow Earlier Detection of Rapid Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma? , 2017, Ophthalmology.

[23]  Allison M McKendrick,et al.  Measurement of Retinal Sensitivity on Tablet Devices in Age-Related Macular Degeneration. , 2015, Translational vision science & technology.

[24]  Juan A. Monsoriu,et al.  Stereopsis assessment at multiple distances with an iPad application , 2017, Displays.

[25]  David B Henson,et al.  Monitoring vigilance during perimetry by using pupillography. , 2010, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[26]  Stephen J. Dain,et al.  Evaluation of tablet computers for visual function assessment , 2017, Behavior research methods.

[27]  A. Vingrys,et al.  Tablets at the bedside - iPad-based visual field test used in the diagnosis of Intrasellar Haemangiopericytoma: a case report , 2017, BMC Ophthalmology.

[28]  H. Hussin,et al.  Performance of the 24-2-5 frequency doubling technology screening test: a prospective case study , 2007, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[29]  Agostino Gibaldi,et al.  Evaluation of the Tobii EyeX Eye tracking controller and Matlab toolkit for research , 2016, Behavior Research Methods.

[30]  H. Quigley,et al.  The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020 , 2006, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[31]  H. Quigley Number of people with glaucoma worldwide. , 1996, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[32]  H. Brash,et al.  Feasibility of saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry: a method of automated static perimetry for children using eye tracking. , 2009, Ophthalmology.

[33]  Andrew J. Tatham,et al.  Comparison of Threshold Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimetry (SVOP) and Standard Automated Perimetry (SAP) in Glaucoma. Part II: Patterns of Visual Field Loss and Acceptability , 2017, Translational vision science & technology.

[34]  A. Hofman,et al.  Prevalence and causes of visual field loss in the elderly and associations with impairment in daily functioning: the Rotterdam Study. , 2001, Archives of ophthalmology.

[35]  A Heijl,et al.  Glaucoma Hemifield Test. Automated visual field evaluation. , 1992, Archives of ophthalmology.

[36]  D. Crabb,et al.  Cases of advanced visual field loss at referral to glaucoma clinics – more men than women? , 2017, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[37]  Y. Kong,et al.  Six-month Longitudinal Comparison of a Portable Tablet Perimeter With the Humphrey Field Analyzer. , 2018, American journal of ophthalmology.

[38]  D. Teller The forced-choice preferential looking procedure: A psychophysical technique for use with human infants. , 1979 .

[39]  Zhong-Lin Lu,et al.  Evaluation of the precision of contrast sensitivity function assessment on a tablet device , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[40]  Y. Kong,et al.  A Comparison of Perimetric Results from a Tablet Perimeter and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients , 2016, Translational vision science & technology.

[41]  Zhao-Tian Zhang,et al.  A Pilot Trial of the Ipad Tablet Computer as a Portable Device for Visual Acuity Testing , 2013, Journal of telemedicine and telecare.

[42]  Lars Frisén,et al.  Self-Testing of Vision in Age-Related Macula Degeneration: A Longitudinal Pilot Study Using a Smartphone-Based Rarebit Test , 2015, Journal of ophthalmology.

[43]  A. Bastawrous,et al.  Development and Validation of a Smartphone-Based Visual Acuity Test (Peek Acuity) for Clinical Practice and Community-Based Fieldwork. , 2015, JAMA ophthalmology.

[44]  Robert Ritch,et al.  Initial arcuate defects within the central 10 degrees in glaucoma. , 2011, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[45]  Marko Nardini,et al.  Automated measurement of resolution acuity in infants using remote eye-tracking. , 2014, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[46]  Ian J. Murray,et al.  Optimisation and Assessment of Three Modern Touch Screen Tablet Computers for Clinical Vision Testing , 2014, PloS one.

[47]  Donald C. Hood,et al.  Glaucomatous damage of the macula , 2013, Progress in Retinal and Eye Research.

[48]  Jost B Jonas,et al.  Prevalence and causes of visual field loss as determined by frequency doubling perimetry in urban and rural adult Chinese. , 2006, American journal of ophthalmology.

[49]  Karen Bandeen-Roche,et al.  Grating visual acuity using the preferential-looking method in elderly nursing home residents. , 2002, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[50]  Chee-Fang Chin,et al.  Rarebit perimetry: normative values and test–retest variability , 2011, Clinical & experimental ophthalmology.

[51]  A Heijl,et al.  Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma , 2008, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[52]  R. Webster,et al.  Kriging: a method of interpolation for geographical information systems , 1990, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[53]  Ronnie George,et al.  Comparison of saccadic reaction time between normal and glaucoma using an eye movement perimeter , 2014, Indian journal of ophthalmology.

[54]  Armin Toepfer,et al.  Perimetry While Moving the Eyes: Implications for the Variability of Visual Field Defects , 2008, Journal of neuro-ophthalmology : the official journal of the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society.

[55]  Brian A. Francis,et al.  Testing of Visual Field with Virtual Reality Goggles in Manual and Visual Grasp Modes , 2014, BioMed research international.

[56]  C Bunce,et al.  Deprivation and late presentation of glaucoma: case-control study , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[57]  Laura Remón,et al.  Designing a new test for contrast sensitivity function measurement with iPad. , 2015, Journal of optometry.

[58]  David P Crabb,et al.  A qualitative investigation into patients’ views on visual field testing for glaucoma monitoring , 2014, BMJ Open.

[59]  Gijs Thepass,et al.  Validity and Repeatability of Saccadic Response Times Across the Visual Field in Eye Movement Perimetry. , 2013, Translational vision science & technology.