Assessing the GOANNA Visual Field Algorithm Using Artificial Scotoma Generation on Human Observers

Purpose To validate the performance of a new perimetric algorithm (Gradient-Oriented Automated Natural Neighbor Approach; GOANNA) in humans using a novel combination of computer simulation and human testing, which we call Artificial Scotoma Generation (ASG). Methods Fifteen healthy observers were recruited. Baseline conventional automated perimetry was performed on the Octopus 900. Visual field sensitivity was measured using two different procedures: GOANNA and Zippy Estimation by Sequential Testing (ZEST). Four different scotoma types were induced in each observer by implementing a novel technique that inserts a step between the algorithm and the perimeter, which in turn alters presentation levels to simulate scotomata in human observers. Accuracy, precision, and unique number of locations tested were measured, with the maximum difference between a location and its neighbors (Max_d) used to stratify results. Results GOANNA sampled significantly more locations than ZEST (paired t-test, P < 0.001), while maintaining comparable test times. Difference plots showed that GOANNA displayed greater accuracy than ZEST when Max_d was in the 10 to 30 dB range (with the exception of Max_d = 20 dB; Wilcoxon, P < 0.001). Similarly, GOANNA demonstrated greater precision than ZEST when Max_d was in the 20 to 30 dB range (Wilcoxon, P < 0.001). Conclusions We have introduced a novel method for assessing accuracy of perimetric algorithms in human observers. Results observed in the current study agreed with the results seen in earlier simulation studies, and thus provide support for performing larger scale clinical trials with GOANNA in the future. Translational Relevance The GOANNA perimetric testing algorithm offers a new paradigm for visual field testing where locations for testing are chosen that target scotoma borders. Further, the ASG methodology used in this paper to assess GOANNA shows promise as a hybrid between computer simulation and patient testing, which may allow more rapid development of new perimetric approaches.

[1]  D B Henson,et al.  Influence of fixation accuracy on threshold variability in patients with open angle glaucoma. , 1996, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[2]  Klaus Rohrschneider,et al.  Fundus perimetry with the Micro Perimeter 1 in normal individuals: comparison with conventional threshold perimetry. , 2005, Ophthalmology.

[3]  E. Adachi-Usami,et al.  Fatigue effect within 10 degrees visual field in automated perimetry. , 1993, Annals of ophthalmology.

[4]  A J Vingrys,et al.  A new look at threshold estimation algorithms for automated static perimetry. , 1999, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[5]  Andrew Turpin,et al.  The Open Perimetry Interface: an enabling tool for clinical visual psychophysics. , 2012, Journal of vision.

[6]  Chris A Johnson,et al.  Development of efficient threshold strategies for frequency doubling technology perimetry using computer simulation. , 2002, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[7]  B. Bengtsson,et al.  Evaluation of a new threshold visual field strategy, SITA, in normal subjects. Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm. , 1998, Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica.

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

[9]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Performance of efficient test procedures for frequency-doubling technology perimetry in normal and glaucomatous eyes. , 2002, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[10]  Fiona Rowe,et al.  Visual Fields via the Visual Pathway , 2006 .

[11]  William H Swanson,et al.  The Effect of Stimulus Size on the Reliable Stimulus Range of Perimetry. , 2015, Translational vision science & technology.

[12]  W. Su,et al.  Comparison of standard white-on-white automated perimetry and short-wavelength automated perimetry in early glaucoma patients. , 2004, Chang Gung medical journal.

[13]  Robert B. DiMartino Visual Fields via the Visual Pathway , 2007 .

[14]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, ZEST, and SITA-like strategies, as determined by computer simulation. , 2003, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[15]  M. G. de la Rosa,et al.  Influence of the “Fatigue Effect” on the Mean Deviation Measurement in Perimetry , 1997, European journal of ophthalmology.

[16]  Andrew Turpin,et al.  Targeted spatial sampling using GOANNA improves detection of visual field progression , 2015, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[17]  Josef Flammer,et al.  The learning and fatigue effect in automated perimetry , 2004, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[18]  M. Sambridge,et al.  Geophysical parametrization and interpolation of irregular data using natural neighbours , 1995 .

[19]  P. King-Smith,et al.  Efficient and unbiased modifications of the QUEST threshold method: Theory, simulations, experimental evaluation and practical implementation , 1994, Vision Research.

[20]  H. J. Wyatt,et al.  Variability of visual field measurements is correlated with the gradient of visual sensitivity , 2007, Vision Research.

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

[22]  Y. Aoyama,et al.  A method to measure visual field sensitivity at the edges of glaucomatous scotomata. , 2014, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[23]  Jean Braun,et al.  A numerical method for solving partial differential equations on highly irregular evolving grids , 1995, Nature.

[24]  J M Wild,et al.  Long‐term follow‐up of baseline learning and fatigue effects in the automated perimetry of glaucoma and ocular hypertensive patients , 1991, Acta ophthalmologica.

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

[26]  N. Pfeiffer,et al.  Learning curve and fatigue effect of flicker defined form perimetry. , 2011, American journal of ophthalmology.

[27]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Within-test Variability of Frequency-doubling Perimetry Using a 24–2 Test Pattern , 2002, Journal of glaucoma.

[28]  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.

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

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

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

[32]  M. Weitzman,et al.  Comparison between Tendency-Oriented Perimetry (TOP) and octopus threshold perimetry. , 2000, Ophthalmology.