Recent developments in visual field testing for glaucoma

Purpose of review Visual field testing remains one of the most important tools for characterizing and monitoring vision loss in glaucoma. Despite its current mainstream use, new developments continue to emerge on its current use and potentially better methods for its testing and analysis. This review summarizes new developments in visual field testing and, in particular, standard automated perimetry. Recent findings Evidence-based guidance has recently been provided on the impact of testing frequency on the ability to detect visual field progression. An increasing body of evidence also highlights numerous factors that can impact the interpretation of visual field results currently considered reliable (e.g. the reliability indices themselves, fixation tracking parameters, and cognitive decline). More targeted visual field testing paradigms for central and peripheral visual fields have been explored, although further work is needed to understand their role in clinical care. Exploiting retinal imaging during visual field testing with fundus-tracked perimetry shows promise for improving precision. Thresholding algorithms that account for spatial and structural information and novel analytical techniques for longitudinal data could also improve the ability to detect and monitor visual field loss. New promising methods for objective and portable assessment of visual function have also emerged. Summary New developments in visual field testing shows promise for improving this challenging, yet fundamental, clinical test for glaucoma management.

[1]  Comparing the Performance of Compass Perimetry With Humphrey Field Analyzer in Eyes With Glaucoma , 2017, Journal of glaucoma.

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

[3]  B Becker,et al.  Peripheral nasal field defects. , 1971, American journal of ophthalmology.

[4]  Stuart K. Gardiner,et al.  The Effect of Limiting the Range of Perimetric Sensitivities on Pointwise Assessment of Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma , 2016, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[5]  Do Intense Perimetric Stimuli Saturate the Healthy Visual System? , 2016, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[6]  K. Hirooka,et al.  Correlation between the ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness measured with cirrus HD-OCT and macular visual field sensitivity measured with microperimetry. , 2013, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[7]  Grace L Tsan,et al.  Prevalence, Features, and Severity of Glaucomatous Visual Field Loss Measured With the 10-2 Achromatic Threshold Visual Field Test. , 2016, American journal of ophthalmology.

[8]  Şerife Seda Kucur,et al.  Spatial Entropy Pursuit for Fast and Accurate Perimetry Testing. , 2017, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[9]  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.

[10]  D. Hood,et al.  24-2 Visual Fields Miss Central Defects Shown on 10-2 Tests in Glaucoma Suspects, Ocular Hypertensives, and Early Glaucoma. , 2017, Ophthalmology.

[11]  Alberto Diniz-Filho,et al.  Frequency of Testing to Detect Visual Field Progression Derived Using a Longitudinal Cohort of Glaucoma Patients. , 2017, Ophthalmology.

[12]  A. Tsujikawa,et al.  Comparison of Macular Integrity Assessment (MAIA ™), MP-3, and the Humphrey Field Analyzer in the Evaluation of the Relationship between the Structure and Function of the Macula , 2016, PloS one.

[13]  Alberto Diniz-Filho,et al.  The Impact of Location of Progressive Visual Field Loss on Longitudinal Changes in Quality of Life of Patients with Glaucoma. , 2016, Ophthalmology.

[14]  Andrew Turpin,et al.  Incorporating Spatial Models in Visual Field Test Procedures , 2016, Translational vision science & technology.

[15]  S. Mansberger,et al.  Effect of Restricting Perimetry Testing Algorithms to Reliable Sensitivities on Test-Retest Variability , 2016, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[16]  Andrew J Anderson Significant Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression in the First Two Years: What Does It Mean? , 2016, Translational vision science & technology.

[17]  S. Gardiner,et al.  Detecting Change Using Standard Global Perimetric Indices in Glaucoma. , 2017, American journal of ophthalmology.

[18]  Andrew Turpin,et al.  Customized, automated stimulus location choice for assessment of visual field defects. , 2014, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[19]  Richard A. Russell,et al.  Detecting Changes in Retinal Function: Analysis with Non-Stationary Weibull Error Regression and Spatial Enhancement (ANSWERS) , 2014, PloS one.

[20]  M. Smolek,et al.  Compass: Clinical Evaluation of a New Instrument for the Diagnosis of Glaucoma , 2015, PloS one.

[21]  H. Rao,et al.  Role of visual field reliability indices in ruling out glaucoma. , 2015, JAMA ophthalmology.

[22]  Jonathan Denniss,et al.  Towards Patient-Tailored Perimetry: Automated Perimetry Can Be Improved by Seeding Procedures With Patient-Specific Structural Information. , 2013, Translational vision science & technology.

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

[24]  T. Jung,et al.  Detecting Glaucoma With a Portable Brain-Computer Interface for Objective Assessment of Visual Function Loss , 2017, JAMA ophthalmology.

[25]  Stuart K. Gardiner,et al.  Detection of Functional Change Using Cluster Trend Analysis in Glaucoma , 2017, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[26]  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.

[27]  Hiroshi Murata,et al.  An objective evaluation of gaze tracking in Humphrey perimetry and the relation with the reproducibility of visual fields: a pilot study in glaucoma. , 2014, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[28]  Andrew Turpin,et al.  Assessing the GOANNA Visual Field Algorithm Using Artificial Scotoma Generation on Human Observers , 2016, Translational vision science & technology.

[29]  Michael V. Boland,et al.  Evidence-based Criteria for Assessment of Visual Field Reliability. , 2017, Ophthalmology.

[30]  Christopher Bowd,et al.  Unsupervised Gaussian Mixture-Model With Expectation Maximization for Detecting Glaucomatous Progression in Standard Automated Perimetry Visual Fields , 2016, Translational vision science & technology.

[31]  Stuart K Gardiner,et al.  Effect of a variability-adjusted algorithm on the efficiency of perimetric testing. , 2014, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[32]  J Caprioli,et al.  Static threshold examination of the peripheral nasal visual field in glaucoma. , 1985, Archives of ophthalmology.

[33]  Tien Yin Wong,et al.  The Effect of Testing Reliability on Visual Field Sensitivity in Normal Eyes: The Singapore Chinese Eye Study. , 2018, Ophthalmology.

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

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

[36]  Ted Maddess,et al.  The influence of sampling errors on test-retest variability in perimetry. , 2011, Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science.

[37]  Michael V. Boland,et al.  Evaluation of Central and Peripheral Visual Field Concordance in Glaucoma , 2016, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[38]  Jean-Claude Mwanza,et al.  A Statistical Model to Analyze Clinician Expert Consensus on Glaucoma Progression using Spatially Correlated Visual Field Data , 2016, Translational vision science & technology.

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

[40]  Hiroshi Murata,et al.  The Usefulness of Gaze Tracking as an Index of Visual Field Reliability in Glaucoma Patients. , 2015, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[41]  Michael Waisbourd,et al.  The Impact of Visual Field Clusters on Performance-based Measures and Vision-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Glaucoma. , 2016, American journal of ophthalmology.

[42]  Alberto Diniz-Filho,et al.  Association Between Neurocognitive Decline and Visual Field Variability in Glaucoma , 2017, JAMA ophthalmology.

[43]  Jonathan Denniss,et al.  A Perimetric Test Procedure That Uses Structural Information , 2015, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[44]  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.

[45]  Lola M. Grillo,et al.  The 24-2 Visual Field Test Misses Central Macular Damage Confirmed by the 10-2 Visual Field Test and Optical Coherence Tomography , 2016, Translational vision science & technology.

[46]  J. Craig,et al.  Anxiety in visual field testing , 2015, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[47]  H. Rao,et al.  Comparing the Structure-Function Relationship at the Macula With Standard Automated Perimetry and Microperimetry. , 2015, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[48]  P. Artes,et al.  Reclaiming the Periphery: Automated Kinetic Perimetry for Measuring Peripheral Visual Fields in Patients With Glaucoma. , 2017, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[49]  Eugene A. Lowry,et al.  Comparison of Peristat Online Perimetry with the Humphrey Perimetry in a Clinic-Based Setting , 2016, Translational vision science & technology.

[50]  Haogang Zhu,et al.  More Accurate Modeling of Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma: ANSWERS. , 2015, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[51]  J. Crowston,et al.  Test-Retest Variability of Fundus-Tracked Perimetry at the Peripapillary Region in Open Angle Glaucoma. , 2016, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[52]  H. Shin,et al.  Clinical Clues to Predict the Presence of Parafoveal Scotoma on Humphrey 10-2 Visual Field Using a Humphrey 24-2 Visual Field. , 2016, American journal of ophthalmology.

[53]  D. Hood,et al.  Association Between Undetected 10-2 Visual Field Damage and Vision-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Glaucoma , 2017, JAMA ophthalmology.

[54]  F. Medeiros,et al.  What rates of glaucoma progression are clinically significant? , 2016, Expert review of ophthalmology.

[55]  Hiroshi Murata,et al.  Investigating the usefulness of a cluster-based trend analysis to detect visual field progression in patients with open-angle glaucoma , 2017, British Journal of Ophthalmology.