Dataset Information

Contrast sensitivity perimetry data from adults free of eye disease.

ABSTRACT: This data article contains data referenced in "Individual Differences in the Shape of the Nasal Visual Field" [1]. The data were gathered from volunteers free of eye disease ages 21-85 who were tested with Contrast Sensitivity Perimetry (CSP), which uses a stimulus resistant to effects of defocus and reduced retinal illumination. Some subjects were tested only once or a few times, and others were part of a longitudinal cohort with as many as 10 tests. Parameters from maximum likelihood estimation of psychophysical threshold at each tested location are included in the data file, along with the participant?s sex, age at time of test, the center of their physiological blind spot, the duration of test, the time of day that the test was begun, and the starting contrast used for the psychophysical staircases.

SUBMITTER: Swanson WH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4939408 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Contrast sensitivity perimetry data from adults free of eye disease.

Swanson William H WH Dul Mitchell W MW Horner Douglas G DG Malinovsky Victor E VE

Data in brief 20160621

This data article contains data referenced in "Individual Differences in the Shape of the Nasal Visual Field" [1]. The data were gathered from volunteers free of eye disease ages 21-85 who were tested with Contrast Sensitivity Perimetry (CSP), which uses a stimulus resistant to effects of defocus and reduced retinal illumination. Some subjects were tested only once or a few times, and others were part of a longitudinal cohort with as many as 10 tests. Parameters from maximum likelihood estimatio ...[more]

PMID: 27437439

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe application of artificial tears before performing perimetry can improve the reliability and results of perimetry in patients with glaucoma and dry eye (DE). However, the effects of ocular surface and tear film conditions on perimetry measurements and reliability have not been fully characterized.MethodsThis prospective, cross-sectional, multicenter study investigated tear metrics in perimetry and assessed the relationships that existed among ocular surface condition, tear condition, and perimetry reliability. Forty-three eyes (43 patients) with DE disease according to the 2016 Japanese diagnostic criteria of DE and 43 eyes (43 subjects) of age- and visual field mean deviation-matched normal control subjects were studied. Perimetry was performed using the Humphrey Field Analyzer (30-2 SITA-Standard). Schirmer's test, strip meniscometry value, blink rate, tear film break-up time (TFBUT), fluorescein staining of ocular surface, and Dry Eye-related Quality of Life Score (DEQS) were measured. Blink rate was re-measured during perimetry. TFBUT and fluorescein staining were re-evaluated after perimetry. Perimetry reliability was evaluated with fixation loss, false-positive, and false-negative rates.ResultsBlink rate during perimetry was significantly lower for both patients with DE and normal controls (both P<0.001). TFBUT after perimetry was significantly higher than before perimetry in patients with DE (P<0.001). Fluorescein staining of ocular surface was significantly increased in patients with DE and normal control subjects (P = 0.002 and P<0.001, respectively). Spearman correlation analysis revealed that blink rate during perimetry was negatively correlated with fixation-loss rate (r = -0.393, P = 0.009) in patients with DE.ConclusionsPerforming perimetry was associated with a significant change in tear condition and ocular surface condition in both patients with DE and normal control subjects. The changes in tear condition and ocular surface condition may impact the reliability of perimetry in patients with DE.

Dataset Information

Contrast sensitivity perimetry data from adults free of eye disease.

Publications

Contrast sensitivity perimetry data from adults free of eye disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets