Visual Field Tests: A Narrative Review of Different Perimetric Methods.

Visual field (VF) testing dates back to fifth century B.C. It plays a pivotal role in the diagnosis, management, and prognosis of retinal and neurological diseases. This review summarizes each of the different VF tests and perimetric methods, including the advantages and disadvantages and adherence to the desired standard diagnostic criteria. The review targets beginners and eye care professionals and includes history and evolution, qualitative and quantitative tests, and subjective and objective perimetric methods. VF testing methods have evolved in terms of technique, precision, user-friendliness, and accuracy. Consequently, some earlier perimetric techniques, often still effective, are not used or have been forgotten. Newer technologies may not always be advantageous because of higher costs, and they may not achieve the desired sensitivity and specificity. VF testing is most often used in glaucoma and neurological diseases, but new objective methods that also measure response latencies are emerging for the management of retinal diseases. Given the varied perimetric methods available, clinicians are advised to select appropriate methods to suit their needs and target disease and to decide on applying simple vs. complex tests or between using subjective and objective methods. Newer, rapid, non-contact, objective methods may provide improved patient satisfaction and allow for the testing of children and the infirm.

Localization of Neuronal Gain Control in the Pupillary Response.

Multifocal pupillographic objective perimetry (mfPOP) is being developed as an alternative to standard visual perimetry. In mfPOP, pupil responses to sparse multifocal luminance stimuli are extracted from the overall composite response. These individual test-region responses are subject to gain-control which is dependent on the temporal and spatial density of stimuli. This study aimed to localize this gain within the pupil pathway. Pupil constriction amplitudes of 8 subjects (41.5 ±12.7 y, 4 male) were measured using a series of 14 mfPOP stimulus variants. The temporal density of stimulus signal at the levels of retina, pretectal olivary nuclei (PON), and Edinger-Westphal nuclei (EWN) were controlled using a combination of manipulation of the mean interval between stimulus presentations (3 or 6 stimuli/s/hemiretina) and the restriction of stimuli to specific subsets of the 24 visual field test-regions per eye (left or right eye, left or right hemifield, or nasal or temporal hemifield). No significant difference was observed between mfPOP variants with differing signal density at the retina or PON but matched density at the other levels. In contrast, where signal density differed at the EWN but was the same at the retinal and PON levels e.g., between 3 stim/s homonymous hemifield and all test-region variants, significant reductions in constriction amplitudes were observed [t (30) = -2.07 to -2.50, all p < 0.05]. Similar, although more variable, relationships were seen using nasal, and temporal hemifield stimuli. Results suggest that the majority of gain-control in the subcortical pupillary pathway occurs at the level of the EWN.

Retinotopic effects of visual attention revealed by dichoptic multifocal pupillography.

Multifocal pupillographic objective perimetry (mfPOP) has recently been shown to be able to measure cortical function. Here we assessed 44 regions of the central 60 degrees of the visual fields of each eye concurrently in 7 minutes/test. We examined how foveally- and peripherally-directed attention changed response sensitivity and delay across the 44 visual field locations/eye. Four experiments were completed comparing white, yellow and blue stimulus arrays. Experiments 1 to 4 tested 16, 23, 9 and 6 subjects, 49/54 being unique. Experiment 1, Experiments 2 and 3, and Experiment 4 used three variants of the mfPOP method that provided increasingly improved signal quality. Experiments 1 to 3 examined centrally directed attention, and Experiment 4 compared effects of attention directed to different peripheral targets. Attention reduced the sensitivity of the peripheral locations in Experiment 1, but only for the white stimuli not yellow. Experiment 2 confirmed that result. Experiment 3 showed that blue stimuli behaved like white. Peripheral attention showed increased sensitivity around the attentional targets. The results are discussed in terms of the cortical inputs to the pupillary system. The results agree with those from multifocal and other fMRI and VEP studies. mfPOP may be a useful adjunct to those methods.