Comparison of Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimetry and Standard Automated Perimetry in Glaucoma. Part I: Threshold Values and Repeatability

Purpose We evaluated threshold saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry (SVOP) and compared results to standard automated perimetry (SAP). Methods A cross-sectional study was done including 162 subjects (103 with glaucoma and 59 healthy subjects) recruited at a university hospital. All subjects underwent SAP and threshold SVOP. SVOP uses an eye tracker to monitor eye movement responses to stimuli and determines if stimuli have been perceived based on the vector of the gaze response. The test pattern used was equivalent to SAP 24-2 and stimuli were presented at Goldmann III. Average and pointwise sensitivity values obtained from both tests were compared using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Two versions of SVOP were evaluated. Results A total of 124 tests were performed with SAP and SVOP version 2. There was excellent agreement between mean threshold values obtained using SVOP and SAP (r = 0.95, P < 0.001). Excluding the blind spot, correlation between SVOP and SAP individual test point sensitivity ranged from 0.61 to 0.90, with 48 of 54 (89%) test points > 0.70. Overall SVOP showed good repeatability with a Pearson correlation of 0.88. The repeatability on a point-by-point basis ranged from 0.66 to 0.98, with 45 of 54 points (83%) > 0.80. Repeatability of SAP was 0.87, ranging from 0.69 to 0.96, with 47 of 54 (87%) points > 0.80. Conclusion Eye-tracking perimetry is repeatable and compares well with the current gold standard of SAP. The technique has advantages over conventional perimetry and could be useful for evaluating glaucomatous visual field loss, particularly in patients who may struggle with conventional perimetry. Translational Relevance Suprathreshold SVOP already is in the field. To our knowledge, this is the first report of threshold SVOP and provides a benchmark for future iterations.

[1]  J. Piltz,et al.  Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields. , 1990, American journal of ophthalmology.

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

[3]  Ian Murray,et al.  Correcting LCD luminance non-uniformity for threshold Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimetry (SVOP) , 2013, 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC).

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

[5]  B C Chauhan,et al.  Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects. , 1999, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[6]  M. Eizenman,et al.  Eye movement perimetry , 1995, Proceedings of 17th International Conference of the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

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

[8]  Ian Murray,et al.  Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimetry (SVOP): A novel technique for automated static perimetry in children using eye tracking , 2013, 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC).

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

[10]  S. Gardiner,et al.  Assessment of patient opinions of different clinical tests used in the management of glaucoma. , 2008, Ophthalmology (Rochester, Minn.).

[11]  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.

[12]  A Heijl,et al.  Evaluation of a new perimetric threshold strategy, SITA, in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. , 1998, Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica.

[13]  Christopher Bowd,et al.  Detecting glaucomatous change in visual fields: Analysis with an optimization framework , 2015, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[14]  David B Henson,et al.  Multisampling suprathreshold perimetry: a comparison with conventional suprathreshold and full-threshold strategies by computer simulation. , 2003, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[15]  W. Swanson,et al.  Assessment of the reliability of standard automated perimetry in regions of glaucomatous damage. , 2014, Ophthalmology.

[16]  B. Damato Oculokinetic perimetry: a simple visual field test for use in the community. , 1985, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[17]  H. Rootzén,et al.  A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. , 2009, Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica.