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.

Multiple Measures of Fixation on Social Content in Infancy: Evidence for a Single Social Cognitive Construct?

The preference of infants to fixate on social information in a stimulus is well known. We examine how this preference manifests across a series of free-viewing tasks using different stimulus types. Participants were thirty typically developing infants. We measured eye movements when viewing isolated faces, faces alongside objects in a grid, and faces naturally presented in photographed scenes. In each task, infants fixated social content for longer than nonsocial content. Social preference scores representing distribution of fixation to social versus general image content were highly correlated and thus combined into a single composite measure, which was independent of demographic and behavioral measures. We infer that multiple eye-tracking tasks can be used to generate a composite measure of social preference in infancy. This approach may prove useful in the early characterization of developmental disabilities.

Preterm birth is associated with atypical social orienting in infancy detected using eye tracking.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is closely associated with neurocognitive impairment in childhood including increased risk for social difficulties. Eye tracking objectively assesses eye-gaze behaviour in response to visual stimuli, which permits inference about underlying cognitive processes. We tested the hypothesis that social orienting in infancy is altered by preterm birth. METHODS: Fifty preterm infants with mean (range) gestational age (GA) at birth of 29(+1) (23(+2) -33(+0) ) weeks and 50 term infants with mean (range) GA at birth 40(+2) (37(+0) -42(+3) ) weeks underwent eye tracking at median age of 7 months. Infants were presented with three categories of social stimuli of increasing complexity. Time to first fixate (TFF) and looking time (LT) on areas of interest (AoIs) were recorded using remote eye tracking. RESULTS: Preterm infants consistently fixated for a shorter time on social content than term infants across all three tasks: face-scanning (fixation to eyes minus mouth 0.61s vs. 1.47s, p = .013); face pop-out task (fixation to face 0.8s vs. 1.34s, p = .023); and social preferential looking (1.16s vs. 1.5s p = .02). Time given to AoIs containing social content as a proportion of LT at the whole stimulus was lower in preterm infants across all three tasks. These results were not explained by differences in overall looking time between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Eye tracking provides early evidence of atypical cognition after preterm birth, and may be a useful tool for stratifying infants at risk of impairment for early interventions designed to improve outcome.

Feasibility of saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry: a method of automated static perimetry for children using eye tracking.

PURPOSE: To determine the feasibility of a new technique for suprathreshold automated static perimetry in children. DESIGN: Evaluation of diagnostic test or technology. PARTICIPANTS: The study included 29 subjects comprising 4 groups: 12 adults with normal fields, 4 children aged less than 10 years with normal fields, 8 adults with visual field defect, and 5 children aged less than 10 years with suspected visual field defects. METHODS: The system comprises a personal computer, display, and eye tracker to monitor gaze position when stimuli are presented in the visual field. The natural saccadic eye movement to fixate on the stimuli, if seen, can be detected and measured to produce a visual field plot. Subjects performed 3 eye-tracking tests, unless unable to do so for any reason: a 40-point binocular test and two 41-point tests for each eye. The tests were based on the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) Central-40 point screening test with a stimulus size of Goldmann III and intensity of 14 decibels (dB). Adults also performed the equivalent Humphrey screening test in each eye for comparison. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison of visual field plot results between the eye-tracking tests and HFA tests in adults. Correlation between the eye-tracking tests and the clinical assessment in the children with suspected visual field defects. RESULTS: In the eyes of all normal adult and child subjects performing the eye-tracking test, the percentage of points in agreement with a healthy visual field was 99.2% and 99.1%, respectively. The percentage of points agreeing with the HFA's screening test in the adult eyes with visual field defects was 89.8%. Visual field defects were also correctly identified by the eye-tracking system in the eyes of children with suspected visual field defects. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that suprathreshold automated static perimetry using eye tracking is a promising method of perimetry for use with children.

Automatic blood pressure measurement: the oscillometric waveform shape is a potential contributor to differences between oscillometric and auscultatory pressure measurements.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the differences between oscillometric and auscultatory measurements. METHOD: From a simulator evaluation of a non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) device regenerating 242 oscillometric blood pressure waveforms from 124 subjects, 10 waveforms were selected based on the differences between the NIBP (oscillometric) and auscultatory pressure measurements. Two waveforms were selected for each of five criteria: systolic over and underestimation; diastolic over and underestimation; and close agreement for both systolic and diastolic pressures. The 10 waveforms were presented to seven different devices and the oscillometric-auscultatory pressure differences were compared between devices and with the oscillometric waveform shapes. RESULTS: Consistent patterns of waveform-dependent over and underestimation of systolic and diastolic pressures were shown for all seven devices. The mean and standard deviation, for all devices, of oscillometric-auscultatory pressure differences were: for the systolic overestimated waveforms, 36 +/- 28/-6 +/- 3 and 23 +/- 2/-1 +/- 3 mmHg (systolic/diastolic differences); for systolic underestimated waveforms, -21 +/- 5/-4 +/- 3 and -11 +/- 4/-3 +/- 3 mmHg; for diastolic overestimated waveforms, 3 +/- 4/12 +/- 5 and 17 +/- 6/10 +/- 2 mmHg; for diastolic underestimated waveforms, 1 +/- 4/-22 +/- 4 and -9 +/- 6/-29 +/- 4 mmHg; and for the two waveforms with good agreement, 0 +/- 6/0 +/- 3 and -2 +/- 4/-4 +/- 3 mmHg. Waveforms for which devices showed good oscillometric and auscultatory agreement had smooth envelopes with clearly defined peaks, compared with the broader plateau and complex shapes of those waveforms for which devices over or underestimated pressures. CONCLUSION: By increasing the understanding of the characteristics and limitations of the oscillometric method and the effects of waveform shape on pressure measurements, simulator evaluation should lead to improvements in NIBP devices.

Effect of the shapes of the oscillometric pulse amplitude envelopes and their characteristic ratios on the differences between auscultatory and oscillometric blood pressure measurements.

INTRODUCTION: Oscillometric noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) devices determine pressure by analysing the oscillometric waveform using empirical algorithms. Many algorithms analyse the waveform by calculating the systolic and diastolic characteristic ratios, which are the amplitudes of the oscillometric pulses in the cuff at, respectively, the systolic and diastolic pressures, divided by the peak pulse amplitude. A database of oscillometric waveforms was used to study the influences of the characteristic ratios on the differences between auscultatory and oscillometric measurements. METHODS: Two hundred and forty-three oscillometric waveforms and simultaneous auscultatory blood pressures were recorded from 124 patients at cuff deflation rates of 2-3 mmHg/s. A simulator regenerated the waveforms, which were presented to two NIBP devices, the Omron HEM-907 [OMRON Europe B.V. (OMCE), Hoofddorp, The Netherlands] and the GE ProCare 400 (GE Healthcare, Tampa, Florida, USA). For each waveform, the paired systolic and paired diastolic pressure differences between device measurements and auscultatory reference pressures were calculated. The systolic and diastolic characteristic ratios, corresponding to the reference auscultatory pressures of each oscillometric waveform stored in the simulator, were calculated. The paired differences between NIBP measured and auscultatory reference pressures were compared with the characteristic ratios. RESULTS: The mean and standard deviations of the systolic and diastolic characteristic ratios were 0.49 (0.11) and 0.72 (0.12), respectively. The systolic pressures recorded by both devices were lower (negative paired pressure difference) than the corresponding auscultatory pressures at low systolic characteristic ratios, but higher than the corresponding auscultatory pressures at high systolic pressures. Conversely, the differences between the paired diastolic pressure differences were higher at low diastolic characteristic ratios, compared with those at high diastolic characteristic ratios. The paired systolic pressure differences were within +/-5 mmHg for those waveforms with systolic characteristic ratios between 0.4 and 0.7 for the Omron and between 0.3 and 0.5 for the ProCare. The paired diastolic pressure differences were within +/-5 mmHg for those waveforms with diastolic characteristic ratios between 0.4 and 0.6 for the Omron and between 0.5 and 0.8 for the ProCare. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The systolic and diastolic paired oscillometric-auscultatory pressure differences varied with their corresponding characteristic ratios. Good agreement (within 5 mmHg) between the oscillometric and auscultatory pressures occurred for oscillometric pulse amplitude envelopes with specific ranges of characteristic ratios, but the ranges were different for the two devices. Further work is required to classify the different envelope shapes, comparing them with patient conditions, to determine if a clearer understanding of the different waveform shapes would improve the accuracy of oscillometric measurements.

Validation of oscillometric noninvasive blood pressure measurement devices using simulators.

Oscillometric noninvasive blood pressure devices measure blood pressure using an indirect method and proprietary algorithms and hence require validation in clinical trials. Clinical trials are, however, expensive and give contradictory results, and validated devices are not accurate in all patient groups. Simulators that regenerate oscillometric waveforms promise an alternative to clinical trials provided they include sufficient physiological and pathological oscillometric waveforms. Simulators should also improve the understanding of the oscillometric method.

Can a simulator that regenerates physiological waveforms evaluate oscillometric non-invasive blood pressure devices?

INTRODUCTION: A simulator has been developed that enables previously recorded clinical oscillometric waveforms to be regenerated for testing oscillometric non-invasive blood pressure measurement devices. Two non-invasive blood pressure devices were evaluated using the simulator with its database of 243 waveforms, to assess the value of a simulator for such evaluations. METHODS: Two oscillometric non-invasive blood pressure devices, both of which had previously been validated against auscultatory references, were selected. The Omron HEM-907 (Omron, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands) measures the pressure during linear cuff deflation and the GE ProCare 400 (GE Healthcare, Tampa, Florida, USA) measures during step deflation. Each non-invasive blood pressure device was attached to the simulator and pressures were recorded from all 243 waveforms. The differences between the systolic and diastolic pressures measured by each non-invasive blood pressure device and the auscultatory references for each waveform were calculated. These were assessed with the European and American validation standards and with the British Hypertension Society protocol. RESULTS: The paired pressure differences (non-invasive blood pressure device minus auscultatory reference) for each device complied partly, but not fully, with the standards or protocol. The means (+/-standard deviation) of the paired systolic and diastolic pressures differences for the Omron were -2.4 mmHg (+/-5.9 mmHg) and -8.9 mmHg (+/-6.5 mmHg), and for the ProCare were -6.5 mmHg (+/-10.4 mmHg) and -2.9 mmHg (+/-7.0 mmHg), respectively. The pressures recorded by the Omron device met the standards for systolic pressures but failed for diastolic pressures and conversely for the ProCare. CONCLUSION: This represents the first evaluation of non-invasive blood pressure devices with a simulator that generates previously recorded clinical oscillometric waveforms. It allowed data from over 100 study participants to be used. Both devices had been previously clinically validated, but their evaluation using the simulator with its regenerated waveforms only partly met the required criteria. Although the results did not fully match previous clinical validations, these initial results give encouragement that a simulator with sufficient stored waveforms might be able to replace the difficult and expensive clinical evaluation of non-invasive blood pressure devices that has prevented many devices from being fully evaluated.

Differences in oscillometric non-invasive blood pressure measurements recorded by different revisions of the Philips Component Monitoring System.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a simulator can detect differences in oscillometric noninvasive blood pressure measurements in different revisions of the Philips Component Monitoring System. Philips revised the intraarterial-based algorithm with software revision C.0, and added an auscultation-based algorithm in revision C.1. METHODS: Three methods were adopted. Firstly, differences were assessed using the Dynatech Nevada CuffLink simulator. Five noninvasive blood pressure modules were tested on monitors with software revision C (software revision prior to C.0) and revision C.0. Monitor C.1 allows the selection of the original intraarterial algorithm (as for revision C), the improved intraarterial (revision C.0) or auscultation; two noninvasive blood pressure modules were tested on it.Secondly, pressures were recorded simultaneously from a participant's left and right arms by monitors C and C.0. The monitors were then swapped between arms and a second set of six pressures were recorded. The two sets were subtracted to calculate the differences between monitors, removing interarm differences. The experiment was carried out on two participants.Thirdly, pressures were recorded from three participants with a simultaneous reference auscultatory measurement. Six sets of simultaneous oscillometric and auscultatory determinations were recorded from monitors C and C.0. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: All three methods revealed that the 'original' intraarterial-based algorithm in revision C recorded lower systolic, diastolic and mean arterial pressures than revision C.0, with the difference in diastolic pressure being the greatest. The difference in diastolic pressures between C and C.0 was up to 15 mmHg. The simulator evaluation finding of higher systolic and diastolic pressures recorded by the revised intraarterial algorithm (C.1 option 3) than by the auscultation-based algorithm (C.1 option 2) is in qualitative agreement with the regression equations of the clinical validation studies. The results suggest that simulators can identify the existence of differing algorithms used to measure blood pressure by the CMS monitor. Philips has continued to develop the algorithms used to determine the pressure by the oscillometric method. While significantly different pressures were recorded by the different revisions, it is interesting that each revision passed clinical validation studies.