Comparison of Matrix with Humphrey Field Analyzer II with SITA

Purpose To study the performance of the Matrix perimeter compared with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II (HFA) with the Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm over the range of contrast sensitivities each machine could estimate. Methods Fifty stable glaucoma subjects at various stages of disease and three normal subjects had visual fields testing done on five different days within 8 weeks with both perimeters. Intraclass correlation coefficient of mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, and the SD of repeat measurements were evaluated. The repeatability of the sensitivity estimates at individual locations and global indices was quantified, as well as their dependence on disease severity. The relationship between sensitivity determinations with the two instruments was explored (principal curve analysis). Results Mean deviation on the HFA ranged from −31 to +2.5 dB. The mean deviation and pattern standard deviation had intraclass correlation coefficients above 0.90 for both instruments. Over most of the useful range (above 20 dB on the HFA), a difference of 1 dB for the Matrix corresponded to a difference of 2 dB for the HFA. The SD of repeat measurements increased with disease severity with HFA, but not with Matrix, except that values of 12 or 34 dB were highly variable on repeat. Variability was reduced for both HFA and Matrix when duplicate sensitivity values were used. A single Matrix test provided only 15 possible sensitivity values, unevenly spaced, but the average of duplicate measurements provided more numerous sensitivity values. A learning effect was detected for Matrix. Conclusions The decibel values reported by the two machines are not equivalent. Variability of sensitivity determinations is affected more by the sensitivity level with HFA than with Matrix. Duplicate measurements for baseline and follow-up evaluation could be important, especially for Matrix. Further information on learning effects is needed, as is commercially available progression software for Matrix.

[1]  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.

[2]  Robert N Weinreb,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of the Matrix 24-2 and original N-30 frequency-doubling technology tests compared with standard automated perimetry. , 2008, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[3]  D. Badcock,et al.  Psychophysical measurement of neural adaptation abnormalities in magnocellular and parvocellular pathways in glaucoma. , 2004, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

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

[5]  D. Badcock,et al.  Contrast sensitivity changes due to glaucoma and normal aging: low-spatial-frequency losses in both magnocellular and parvocellular pathways. , 2007, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[6]  J. Katz,et al.  Scoring systems for measuring progression of visual field loss in clinical trials of glaucoma treatment. , 1999, Ophthalmology.

[7]  E. Blumenthal,et al.  The Learning Effect in Visual Field Testing of Healthy Subjects Using Frequency Doubling Technology , 2002, Journal of glaucoma.

[8]  N. Jansonius,et al.  Strategies for improving the diagnostic specificity of the frequency doubling perimeter. , 2005, Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica.

[9]  C. Johnson.  Selective versus nonselective losses in glaucoma. , 1994, Journal of glaucoma.

[10]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Characteristics of the normative database for the Humphrey matrix perimeter. , 2005, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[11]  E. Adachi-Usami,et al.  Learning effect for frequency doubling perimetry in patients with glaucoma. , 2002, American journal of ophthalmology.

[12]  Robert N Weinreb,et al.  Visual function-specific perimetry to identify glaucomatous visual loss using three different definitions of visual field abnormality. , 2009, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[13]  Brenda W Gillespie,et al.  The collaborative initial glaucoma treatment study: baseline visual field and test-retest variability. , 2003, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

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

[15]  Michael Wall,et al.  Repeatability of automated perimetry: a comparison between standard automated perimetry with stimulus size III and V, matrix, and motion perimetry. , 2009, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

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

[17]  William H Swanson,et al.  Choice of Stimulus Range and Size Can Reduce Test-Retest Variability in Glaucomatous Visual Field Defects. , 2014, Translational vision science & technology.

[18]  T. Hastie,et al.  Principal Curves , 2007 .

[19]  J. Wild,et al.  Time-related variation in normal automated static perimetry. , 1991, Ophthalmology.

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

[21]  Douglas R. Anderson.  Automated Static Perimetry , 1992 .

[22]  M. Araie,et al.  Learning Effect and Measurement Variability in Frequency-Doubling Technology Perimetry in Chronic Open-Angle Glaucoma , 2002, Journal of glaucoma.

[23]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Predictive Value of Frequency Doubling Technology Perimetry for Detecting Glaucoma in a Developing Country , 2005, Journal of glaucoma.

[24]  Visual field progression with frequency-doubling matrix perimetry and standard automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma and in healthy controls. , 2013, JAMA ophthalmology.

[25]  K. Woodward,et al.  The effect of attention on conventional automated perimetry and luminance size threshold perimetry. , 2004, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[26]  C. Johnson,et al.  Normal aging effects for frequency doubling technology perimetry. , 1999, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[27]  J. Fleiss.  The design and analysis of clinical experiments , 1987 .

[28]  Ted Maddess,et al.  Performance of nonlinear visual units in ocular hypertension and glaucoma , 1992 .

[29]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Comparison of the ASA, MOBS, and ZEST threshold methods , 2006, Vision Research.

[30]  A M McKendrick,et al.  Measurement error of visual field tests in glaucoma , 2003, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[31]  Barry B. Lee,et al.  Responses of primate retinal ganglion cells to perimetric stimuli. , 2011, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[32]  H. Goldmann,et al.  Fundamentals of exact perimetry , 1999 .

[33]  Barry B. Lee,et al.  An examination of physiological mechanisms underlying the frequency-doubling illusion. , 2002, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[34]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  The repeatability of mean defect with size III and size V standard automated perimetry. , 2013, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[35]  M. C. Leske,et al.  Measuring visual field progression in the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. , 2003, Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica.

[36]  A Heijl,et al.  Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial: design and baseline data. , 1999, Ophthalmology.

[37]  Allan Donner,et al.  Testing the equality of dependent intraclass correlation coefficients , 2002 .

[38]  A. James,et al.  Evidence for spatial aliasing effects in the Y-like cells of the magnocellular visual pathway , 1998, Vision Research.

[39]  J L Keltner,et al.  Confirmation of visual field abnormalities in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group. , 2000, Archives of ophthalmology.

[40]  R S Harwerth,et al.  Glaucoma in primates: cytochrome oxidase reactivity in parvo- and magnocellular pathways. , 2000, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[41]  M. Nicolela,et al.  Effects of blur and repeated testing on sensitivity estimates with frequency doubling perimetry. , 2003, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[42]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Effect of Dichoptic Adaptation on Frequency-Doubling Perimetry , 2002, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[43]  Samin Hong,et al.  Learning effect of Humphrey Matrix perimetry. , 2007, Canadian journal of ophthalmology. Journal canadien d'ophtalmologie.

[44]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Mechanisms isolated by frequency-doubling technology perimetry. , 2002, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[45]  Yuko Ohno,et al.  Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast strategies. , 2002, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[46]  T. Maddess.  Frequency-doubling technology and parasol cells. , 2011, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[47]  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.

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

[49]  J. Wild,et al.  Fatigue effects during a single session of automated static threshold perimetry. , 1994, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[50]  Author Response: Frequency-doubling technology and parasol cells , 2011 .

[51]  Hao Sun,et al.  Linearity Can Account for the Similarity Among Conventional, Frequency-Doubling, and Gabor-Based Perimetric Tests in the Glaucomatous Macula , 2006, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[52]  J. Myers.  Comparison of Visual Field Defects Using Matrix Perimetry and Standard Achromatic Perimetry , 2008 .

[53]  Paul H Artes,et al.  Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. , 2005, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[54]  M. Gonzalez-Hernandez,et al.  Long-Term Fluctuation of Standard Automatic Perimetry, Pulsar Perimetry and Frequency-Doubling Technology in Early Glaucoma Diagnosis , 2007, Ophthalmic Research.

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

[56]  C. Johnson,et al.  Simulation of longitudinal threshold visual field data. , 2000, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[57]  J. Morgan.  Selective cell death in glaucoma: does it really occur? , 1994, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[58]  M Zingirian,et al.  Learning effect, short-term fluctuation, and long-term fluctuation in frequency doubling technique. , 2000, American journal of ophthalmology.

[59]  Shu Liu,et al.  Comparison of standard automated perimetry, frequency-doubling technology perimetry, and short-wavelength automated perimetry for detection of glaucoma. , 2011, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.