Automated pupil perimetry. Pupil field mapping in patients and normal subjects.

The authors developed an automated method of pupil perimetry by linking an infrared video pupillometer to a Humphrey Field Analyzer. Software was developed to automatically analyze the pupil responses to focal light stimuli and display the results graphically. All 76 locations of Humphrey program 30-2 could be tested twice within 5.5 minutes and the relative sensitivity of the field was determined by comparing the amplitude of pupil constriction or latency time at each stimulus location. The mean pupil responses within annular areas at 3 degrees, 9 degrees, 15 degrees, 21 degrees, and 27 degrees were shown to be linearly related to log stimulus intensity over a 15 dB range under low level mesopic conditions (3.15 asb bowl background). In normal subjects, the superior temporal quadrant usually had the greatest mean pupillomotor response and the inferior nasal quadrant had the least. Pupil responses in the temporal field were larger than corresponding locations in the nasal field. Patients with visual field defects who underwent testing by pupil perimetry showed pupillary deficits in the same location within the field, providing evidence that pupil perimetry may be a useful, objective means of assessing visual field function.

[1]  A. Müller-Jensen,et al.  Videopupillographic and VER investigations in patients with congenital and acquired lesions of the optic radiation. , 1979, Ophthalmologica. Journal international d'ophtalmologie. International journal of ophthalmology. Zeitschrift fur Augenheilkunde.

[2]  M. A. Bouman,et al.  Differential threshold measurements on the light reflex of the human pupil. , 1958, A.M.A. archives of ophthalmology.

[3]  G. Sanborn,et al.  The afferent pupillary defect in asymmetric glaucoma. , 1987, Archives of ophthalmology.

[4]  THE PUPIL AS INDICATOR OF RETINAL ACTIVITY. , 1964, American journal of ophthalmology.

[5]  J J Corbett,et al.  The relationship between visual acuity, pupillary defect, and visual field loss. , 1982, American journal of ophthalmology.

[6]  S. Charles,et al.  Pupil motor perimetry. , 1969, American journal of ophthalmology.

[7]  W. Jensen [A description of a method for objective perimetry (author's transl)]. , 1976, Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie. Albrecht von Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology.

[8]  C. Walker FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ON THE HEMIOPIC PUPILLARY REACTION OBTAINED WITH A NEW CLINICAL INSTRUMENT , 1914 .

[9]  S. Ishikawa,et al.  A new videopupillography. , 1970, Ophthalmologica. Journal international d'ophtalmologie. International journal of ophthalmology. Zeitschrift fur Augenheilkunde.

[10]  S. Narasaki Videopupillographic perimetry and its clinical application , 1974 .

[11]  E. Aulhorn,et al.  Pupillary hemiakinesia in suprageniculate lesions. , 1975, A M A Archives of Ophthalmology.

[12]  M. Bartholomew,et al.  Correlation of afferent pupillary defect with visual field loss on automated perimetry. , 1988, Ophthalmology.

[13]  D A Newsome,et al.  Iris mechanics. I. Influence of pupil size on dynamics of pupillary movements. , 1971, American journal of ophthalmology.

[14]  Lawrence Stark,et al.  Pupillometry, a bioengineering overview , 1981 .

[15]  K. N. Ogle,et al.  COMPARISON OF VISUAL AND PUPILLARY LIGHT THRESHOLDS IN PERIPHERY. , 1964, Archives of ophthalmology.