The effect of multifocal contact lenses on the dynamic accommodation step response.

PURPOSE: To measure the dynamic accommodation response (AR) to step stimuli with and without multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs), in emmetropes and myopes. METHODS: Twenty-two adult subjects viewed alternating distance (0.25D) and near (3D) Maltese crosses placed in free space, through two contact lens types: single vision (SVCL) or centre-distance multifocal (MFCL; +2.50D add). The AR level was measured along with near to far (N-F) and far to near (F-N) step response characteristics: percentage of correct responses, magnitude, latency, peak velocity and duration of step response. RESULTS: There was no difference between N-F and F-N responses, or between refractive groups in any aspect of the accommodation step response dynamics. The percentage of correct responses was unaffected by contact lens type. Through MFCLs, subjects demonstrated smaller magnitude, longer latency, shorter duration and slower peak velocity steps than through SVCLs. When viewing the near target, the AR through MFCLs was significantly lower than through SVCLs. When viewing the distance target with the MFCL, the focal points from rays travelling through the distance and near zones were approximately 0.004D behind and 2.50D in front of the retina, respectively. When viewing the near target, the respective values were approximately 1.89D behind and 0.61D in front of the retina. CONCLUSION: The defocus error required for accommodation control appears not to be solely derived from the distance zone of the MFCL. This results in reduced performance in response to abruptly changing vergence stimuli; however, these errors were small and unlikely to impact everyday visual tasks. There was a decrease in ocular accommodation during near tasks, which has previously been correlated with a reduced myopic treatment response through these lenses. With MFCLs, the estimated dioptric myopic defocus was the largest when viewing a distant stimulus, supporting the hypothesis that the outdoors provides a beneficial visual environment to reduce myopia progression.

The Assessment of Visual Fields in Infants Using Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimetry (SVOP): A Feasibility Study.

Purpose: To examine the feasibility of saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry (SVOP), an automated eye tracking perimeter, as a tool for visual field (VF) assessment in infants. Methods: Thirteen healthy infants aged between 3.5 and 12.0 months were tested binocularly using an adapted SVOP protocol. SVOP uses eye tracking technology to measure gaze responses to stimuli presented on a computer screen. Modifications of SVOP for testing infants included adjusting the fixation target to display a short animation, increasing the stimulus size to equivalent to Goldmann V, and introducing a tiered test pattern strategy. Binocular, single-quadrant confrontation VF testing and Keeler preferential looking cards visual acuity testing was also performed. Results: Using multiple test attempts when required, all but the youngest infant (12 of 13 [92.3%]) successfully completed a 4-point screening test. Seven infants (53.8%) successfully completed the 12-point test, four (30.8%) successfully completed the 20-point test, and three (23.1%) successfully completed the 40-point test. The effect of multiple test attempts and the complexity of the test pattern (number of test points) on performance was investigated, including test completion rate, percentage of correctly seen stimuli, and average time per tested stimulus. Conclusions: The modified SVOP test strategy allowed successful assessment of binocular VFs in healthy infants. Future data collection from larger cohorts of infants is needed to derive normative limits of detection and assess accuracy in detecting and monitoring infant VF abnormalities. Translational Relevance: Eye tracking perimetry may provide a useful method of automated VF assessment in infants.

A case control study examining the feasibility of using eye tracking perimetry to differentiate patients with glaucoma from healthy controls.

To explore the feasibility of using Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimetry (SVOP) to differentiate glaucomatous and healthy eyes. A prospective case-control study was performed using a convenience sample recruited from a single university glaucoma clinic and a group of healthy controls. SVOP and standard automated perimetry (SAP) was performed with testing order randomised. The reference standard was a diagnosis of glaucoma based a comprehensive ophthalmic examination and abnormality on standard automated perimetry (SAP). The index test was SVOP. 31 patients with glaucoma and 24 healthy subjects were included. Mean SAP mean deviation (MD) in those with glaucoma was - 8.7 ± 7.4 dB, with mean SAP and SVOP sensitivities of 23.3 ± 0.9 dB and 22.1 ± 4.3 dB respectively. Participants with glaucoma were significantly older. On average, SAP sensitivity was 1.2 ± 1.4 dB higher than SVOP (95% limits of agreement = - 1.6 to 4.0 dB). SVOP sensitivity had good ability to differentiate healthy and glaucomatous eyes with a 95% CI for area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84 to 0.96, similar to the performance of SAP sensitivity (95% CI 0.86 to 0.97, P = 0.60). For 80% specificity, SVOP had a 95% CI sensitivity of 75.7% to 94.8% compared to 77.8% to 96.0% for SAP. SVOP took considerably longer to perform (514 ± 54 s compared to 267 ± 76 s for SAP). Eye tracking perimetry may be useful for detection of glaucoma but further studies are needed to evaluate SVOP within its intended sphere of use, using an appropriate design and independent reference standard.

Development of an Age-corrected Normative Database for Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimetry (SVOP).

PRECIS: Normal age-corrected threshold sensitivity values were determined for a new eye tracking perimeter and compared with standard automated perimetry (SAP). PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine threshold visual field sensitivities in normal subjects performing saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry (SVOP), a new eye tracking perimeter. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 113 healthy participants performed SVOP and SAP in both eyes with the order of testing randomized. The relationship between SAP and SVOP sensitivity was examined using Bland-Altman plots and 95% limits of agreement. The relationship between sensitivity and age was examined by pointwise linear regression and age-corrected normal threshold sensitivities were calculated. RESULTS: After excluding unreliable tests, 97 participants with a mean age of 65.9±10.1 years were included. Average SAP mean deviation was -0.87±1.56 dB, SAP sensitivity was 29.20±1.68 dB and SVOP sensitivity was 32.18±1.96 dB. SVOP had a longer test duration (431±110 compared with 307±42 seconds for SAP, P<0.001). On average, the mean sensitivity obtained using SVOP was 2.98 dB higher than average SAP sensitivity, with 95% limits of agreement of -0.11 to 6.15 dB. For each decade older, SAP sensitivity decreased by 0.93 dB (95% confidence interval: 1.21 to 0.64) and SVOP sensitivity decreased by 1.15 dB (95% confidence interval: 1.47 to 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: The results provide age-corrected normative values for threshold sensitivities from SVOP. Overall, SVOP provided a similar shaped hill of vision as SAP however threshold sensitivities were higher, meaning results are not interchangeable.

Speed and accuracy of saccades in patients with glaucoma evaluated using an eye tracking perimeter.

BACKGROUND: To examine the speed and accuracy of saccadic eye movements during a novel eye tracking threshold visual field assessment and determine whether eye movement parameters may improve ability to detect glaucoma. METHODS: A prospective study including both eyes of 31 patients with glaucoma and 23 controls. Standard automated perimetry (SAP) and eye tracking perimetry (saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry, SVOP) was performed. SVOP provided data on threshold sensitivity, saccade latency, and two measures of accuracy of saccades (direction bias and amplitude bias). The relationship between eye movement parameters and severity of glaucoma was examined and Receiver Operating Characteristic curves were used to assess ability to detect glaucoma. RESULTS: Patients with glaucoma had significantly slower saccades (602.9 ± 50.0 ms versus 578.3 ± 44.6 ms for controls, P = 0.009) and reduced saccade accuracy (direction bias = 7.4 ± 1.8 versus 6.5 ± 1.5 degrees, P = 0.006). There was a significant slowing of saccades and saccades became less accurate with worsening SAP sensitivity. Slower saccades were associated with increased odds of glaucoma; however, the AUC for saccade latency was only 0.635 compared to 0.914 for SVOP sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Patients with glaucoma had significant differences in eye movements compared to healthy subjects, with a relationship between slower and less accurate eye movements and worse glaucoma severity. However, in a multivariable model, eye movement parameters were not of additional benefit in differentiating eyes with glaucoma from healthy controls.

Detection and characterisation of visual field defects using Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimetry in children with brain tumours.

PURPOSE: To determine the ability of Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimetry (SVOP) to detect and characterise visual field defects in children with brain tumours using eye-tracking technology, as current techniques for assessment of visual fields in young children can be subjective and lack useful detail. METHODS: Case-series study of children receiving treatment and follow-up for brain tumours at the Royal Hospital for Sick Children in Edinburgh from April 2008 to August 2013. Patients underwent SVOP testing and the results were compared with clinically expected visual field patterns determined by a consensus panel after review of clinical findings, neuroimaging, and where possible other forms of visual field assessment. RESULTS: Sixteen patients participated in this study (mean age of 7.2 years; range 2.9-15 years; 7 male, 9 female). Twelve children (75%) successfully performed SVOP testing. SVOP had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 50% (positive predictive value of 80% and negative predictive value of 100%). In the true positive and true negative SVOP results, the characteristics of the SVOP plots showed agreement with the expected visual field. Six patients were able to perform both SVOP and Goldmann perimetry, these demonstrated similar visual fields in every case. CONCLUSION: SVOP is a highly sensitive test that may prove to be extremely useful for assessing the visual field in young children with brain tumours, as it is able to characterise the central 30° of visual field in greater detail than previously possible with older techniques.

Comparison of Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimetry and Standard Automated Perimetry in Glaucoma. Part I: Threshold Values and Repeatability.

PURPOSE: We evaluated threshold saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry (SVOP) and compared results to standard automated perimetry (SAP). METHODS: A cross-sectional study was done including 162 subjects (103 with glaucoma and 59 healthy subjects) recruited at a university hospital. All subjects underwent SAP and threshold SVOP. SVOP uses an eye tracker to monitor eye movement responses to stimuli and determines if stimuli have been perceived based on the vector of the gaze response. The test pattern used was equivalent to SAP 24-2 and stimuli were presented at Goldmann III. Average and pointwise sensitivity values obtained from both tests were compared using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Two versions of SVOP were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 124 tests were performed with SAP and SVOP version 2. There was excellent agreement between mean threshold values obtained using SVOP and SAP (r = 0.95, P < 0.001). Excluding the blind spot, correlation between SVOP and SAP individual test point sensitivity ranged from 0.61 to 0.90, with 48 of 54 (89%) test points > 0.70. Overall SVOP showed good repeatability with a Pearson correlation of 0.88. The repeatability on a point-by-point basis ranged from 0.66 to 0.98, with 45 of 54 points (83%) > 0.80. Repeatability of SAP was 0.87, ranging from 0.69 to 0.96, with 47 of 54 (87%) points > 0.80. CONCLUSION: Eye-tracking perimetry is repeatable and compares well with the current gold standard of SAP. The technique has advantages over conventional perimetry and could be useful for evaluating glaucomatous visual field loss, particularly in patients who may struggle with conventional perimetry. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Suprathreshold SVOP already is in the field. To our knowledge, this is the first report of threshold SVOP and provides a benchmark for future iterations.

Comparison of Threshold Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimetry (SVOP) and Standard Automated Perimetry (SAP) in Glaucoma. Part II: Patterns of Visual Field Loss and Acceptability.

PURPOSE: We compared patterns of visual field loss detected by standard automated perimetry (SAP) to saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry (SVOP) and examined patient perceptions of each test. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was done of 58 healthy subjects and 103 with glaucoma who were tested using SAP and two versions of SVOP (v1 and v2). Visual fields from both devices were categorized by masked graders as: 0, normal; 1, paracentral defect; 2, nasal step; 3, arcuate defect; 4, altitudinal; 5, biarcuate; and 6, end-stage field loss. SVOP and SAP classifications were cross-tabulated. Subjects completed a questionnaire on their opinions of each test. RESULTS: We analyzed 142 (v1) and 111 (v2) SVOP and SAP test pairs. SVOP v2 had a sensitivity of 97.7% and specificity of 77.9% for identifying normal versus abnormal visual fields. SAP and SVOP v2 classifications showed complete agreement in 54% of glaucoma patients, with a further 23% disagreeing by one category. On repeat testing, 86% of SVOP v2 classifications agreed with the previous test, compared to 91% of SAP classifications; 71% of subjects preferred SVOP compared to 20% who preferred SAP. CONCLUSIONS: Eye-tracking perimetry can be used to obtain threshold visual field sensitivity values in patients with glaucoma and produce maps of visual field defects, with patterns exhibiting close agreement to SAP. Patients preferred eye-tracking perimetry compared to SAP. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: This first report of threshold eye tracking perimetry shows good agreement with conventional automated perimetry and provides a benchmark for future iterations.

Feasibility, Accuracy, and Repeatability of Suprathreshold Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimetry.

PURPOSE: To evaluate feasibility, accuracy, and repeatability of suprathreshold Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimetry (SVOP) by comparison with Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) perimetry. METHODS: The subjects included children with suspected field defects (n = 10, age 5-15 years), adults with field defects (n = 33, age 39-78 years), healthy children (n = 12, age 6-14 years), and healthy adults (n = 30, age 16-61 years). The test protocol comprised repeat suprathreshold SVOP and HFA testing with the C-40 test pattern. Feasibility was assessed by protocol completeness. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of SVOP was established by comparison with reliable HFA tests in two ways: (1) visual field pattern results (normal/abnormal), and (2) individual test point outcomes (seen/unseen). Repeatability of each test type was assessed using Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: Of subjects, 82% completed a full protocol. Poor reliability of HFA testing in child patients limited the robustness of comparisons in this group. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy across all groups when analyzing the visual field pattern results was 90.9%, 88.5%, and 89.0%, respectively, and was 69.1%, 96.9%, and 95.0%, respectively, when analyzing the individual test points. Cohen's kappa coefficient for repeatability of SVOP and HFA was excellent (0.87 and 0.88, respectively) when assessing visual field pattern results, and substantial (0.62 and 0.74, respectively) when assessing test point outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: SVOP was accurate in this group of adults. Further studies are required to assess SVOP in child patient groups. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: SVOP technology is still in its infancy but is used in a number of centers. It will undergo iterative improvements and this study provides a benchmark for future iterations.