Dataset Information

Determining Spatial Summation and Its Effect on Contrast Sensitivity across the Central 20 Degrees of Visual Field.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Recent studies propose that the use of target stimuli within or close to complete spatial summation reveal larger threshold elevation in ocular disease. The Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer (HFA) is used to assess visual function yet the spatial summation characteristics are unexplored for the central macular region. We therefore wanted to establish the relationship between contrast sensitivity and stimulus size (spatial summation) within the central 20° visual field using the high sampling density of the 10-2 test grid.

Methods

Thresholds were measured for one eye from 37 normal subjects using the HFA 10-2 test grid with all five Goldmann (G) targets (GI to GV). Subject data were converted to 50-year-old equivalent using published and calculated location-specific decade correction factors. Spatial summation curves were fitted for all data at all locations. The size of Ricco's critical area (Ac) within which complete spatial summation operates (k = 1), and the slope of partial summation (k < 1: to characterize partial summation), was established.

Results

The 50-year-old age normative data were determined for all Goldmann stimulus sizes for the 10-2 HFA test grid and showed a marked change in contrast sensitivity for small test stimuli (e.g. GI) and little change in larger test stimuli (e.g. GV). Both the Ac and k values did not vary with age allowing for the application of the age correction factors. Ac and k values increased with eccentricity with GI remaining within complete spatial summation and GII was close or within complete spatial summation. GIII or larger test sizes were always outside complete spatial summation operating within various levels of partial summation.

Conclusions

The developed normative data now allows comparisons of data sets with high sampling density using the 10-2 grid irrespective of subject age. Test size is important when assessing ocular disease yet only GI or GII stimuli operate close to or within complete spatial summation in the macula. Current visual field testing protocols employ GIII which is always outside complete spatial summation and operates under various values of partial summation: GIII may not be the most suitable test size to assess ocular disease affecting the macula.

SUBMITTER: Choi AY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4934771 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Current clinical evaluation, which focuses on central vision, could be improved through characterization of residual vision with peripheral testing of visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, color vision, crowding, and reading speed. Assessing visual functions in addition to light sensitivity, a comprehensive visual field map (VFM) would be valuable for detecting and managing eye diseases. In a previous study, we developed a Bayesian adaptive qVFM method that combines a global module for preliminary assessment of the VFM's shape and a local module for assessment at individual retinal locations. The method was validated in measuring the light sensitivity VFM. In this study, we extended the qVFM method to measure contrast sensitivity across the visual field. In both simulations and psychophysics, we sampled 64 visual field locations (48 x 48 deg) and compared the qVFM method with a procedure that tested each retinal location independently (qFC; Lesmes et al., 2015). In each trial, subjects were required to identify a single optotype (size: 2.5 x 2.5 deg), one of 10 filtered Sloan letters. To compare the accuracy and precision of the two methods, three simulated eyes were tested in 1,280 trials with each method. In addition, data were collected from 10 eyes (5 OS, 5 OD) of five normal observers. For simulations, the average RMSE of the estimated contrast sensitivity with the qVFM and qFC methods were 0.057 and 0.100 after 320 trials, and 0.037 and 0.041 after 1,280 trials [all in log10 units, represent as log(sensitivity)], respectively. The average SD of the qVFM and qFC estimates were 0.054 and 0.096 after 320 trials, and 0.032 and 0.041 after 1,280 trials, respectively. The within-run variability (68.2% HWCIs) were comparable to the cross-run variability (SD). In the psychophysics experiment, the average HWCI of the estimated contrast sensitivity from the qVFM and qFC methods across the visual field decreased from 0.33 on the first trial to 0.072 and 0.16 after 160, and to 0.060 and 0.10 after 320 trials. The RMSE between the qVFM and qFC estimates started at 0.26, decreased to 0.12 after 160 and to 0.11 after 320 qVFM trials. The qVFM provides an accurate, precise, and efficient mapping of contrast sensitivity across the entire visual field. The method might find potential clinical applications in monitoring vision loss, evaluating therapeutic interventions, and developing effective rehabilitation for visual diseases.