Within-test Variability of Frequency-doubling Perimetry Using a 24–2 Test Pattern

PurposeTo evaluate patient-response (within-test) variability for targets of the smaller frequency-doubling technology perimetry test that employs a 24–2 stimulus-presentation pattern. MethodsPatient-response variability was examined using the method of constant stimuli for standard (10°) and small (4°) customized frequency-doubling technology perimetry stimuli presented on a CRT screen. Small stimuli were designed for use in a 24–2 test pattern. Matched test locations were examined in 24 subjects (8 normal, 8 in whom glaucoma was suspected, and 8 glaucoma patients). Threshold sensitivity (in decibels for the 50% detection level) and variability (interquartile range in decibels) were obtained from frequency-of-seeing curves derived from data fitting with cumulative Gaussian functions. Groups were compared using a two-way ANOVA. ResultsThresholds obtained using standard and small stimuli were highly correlated (R = 0.94, P < 0.001, Pearson correlation), although smaller targets systematically estimated sensitivity to be 2.0 dB (95% CI, 1.7–2.4 dB) lower than standard targets. No significant difference in patient-response variability was observed between standard and small targets (P = 0.067), although both target sizes demonstrated small but significant increases in variability with reduced sensitivity. Mean (SD) patient-response variability for the normal, suspect, and glaucoma groups was 1.0 (0.6), 0.9 (0.4), and 1.8 (1.4) dB for standard-sized stimuli and 1.1 (0.8), 1.5 (1.2), and 2.0 (0.9) dB for small stimuli. ConclusionsSmall (4°) frequency-doubling technology perimetry targets have variability characteristics that are not statistically significantly different from those observed for standard-sized (10°) stimuli. Reduction in frequency-doubling technology perimetry stimulus size necessary to produce 24–2 test resolution is unlikely to affect test repeatability. Smaller, more numerous stimuli may offer clinical advantages both in terms of detecting small defects and identifying progressive loss.

[1]  L. Frisén Acuity perimetry: Estimation of neural channels , 2004, International Ophthalmology.

[2]  A M McKendrick,et al.  Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry. , 2001, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

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

[4]  P A Sample,et al.  Visual function-specific perimetry for indirect comparison of different ganglion cell populations in glaucoma. , 2000, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[5]  D. Friedman,et al.  Algorithm for interpreting the results of frequency doubling perimetry. , 2000, American journal of ophthalmology.

[6]  E. Higginbotham,et al.  Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry with humphrey visual field analysis in a glaucoma practice. , 2000, American journal of ophthalmology.

[7]  P. Artes,et al.  Response variability in the visual field: comparison of optic neuritis, glaucoma, ocular hypertension, and normal eyes. , 2000, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

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

[9]  C A Johnson,et al.  Frequency doubling technology perimetry using a 24--2 stimulus presentation pattern. , 1999, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[10]  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.

[11]  H. Quigley Identification of glaucoma-related visual field abnormality with the screening protocol of frequency doubling technology. , 1998, American journal of ophthalmology.

[12]  David P Crabb,et al.  High spatial resolution automated perimetry in glaucoma , 1997, The British journal of ophthalmology.

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

[14]  B. Chauhan,et al.  Variability in patients with glaucomatous visual field damage is reduced using size V stimuli. , 1997, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[15]  Motion detection threshold and field progression in normal tension glaucoma. , 1995, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[16]  J. D. Tompkins,et al.  Characteristics of frequency-of-seeing curves in normal subjects, patients with suspected glaucoma, and patients with glaucoma. , 1993, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[17]  B. Chauhan,et al.  Intratest variability in conventional and high-pass resolution perimetry. , 1991, Ophthalmology.

[18]  A Heijl,et al.  Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields. , 1989, American journal of ophthalmology.

[19]  A. Adams,et al.  Central visual fields for short wavelength sensitive pathways in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. , 1988, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[20]  L Frisén,et al.  High-pass resolution targets in peripheral vision. , 1987, Ophthalmology.

[21]  W. Argus,et al.  Fluctuations on the Humphrey and Octopus perimeters. , 1987, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[22]  J L Keltner,et al.  Variability of quantitative automated perimetry in normal observers. , 1986, Ophthalmology.

[23]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[24]  Anders Heijl,et al.  The Humphrey Field Analyzer, Construction and Concepts , 1985 .

[25]  J Flammer,et al.  Differential light threshold. Short- and long-term fluctuation in patients with glaucoma, normal controls, and patients with suspected glaucoma. , 1984, Archives of ophthalmology.

[26]  H Bebie,et al.  STATIC PERIMETRY: ACCURACY AND FLUCTUATIONS , 1976, Acta ophthalmologica.

[27]  D. H. Kelly Frequency Doubling in Visual Responses , 1966 .

[28]  A. Beckett,et al.  AKUFO AND IBARAPA. , 1965, Lancet.