Search

Purpose: A newly developed head-mounted perimeter termed “imo” enables visual field (VF) testing without a fixed head position. Because the positional relationship between the subject’s head and the imo is fixed, the effects of head position changes on the test results are small compared with those obtained using a stationary perimeter. However, only ocular counter-roll (OCR) induced by head tilt might affect VF testing. To quantitatively reveal the effects of head tilt and OCR on the VF test results, we investigated the associations among the head-tilt angle, OCR amplitude and VF testing results. Subjects and methods: For 20 healthy subjects, we binocularly recorded static OCR (s-OCR) while tilting the subject’s head at an arbitrary angle ranging from 0° to 60° rightward or leftward in 10° increments. By monitoring iris patterns, we evaluated the s-OCR amplitude. We also performed blind spot detection while tilting the subject’s head by an arbitrary angle ranging from 0° to 50° rightward or leftward in 10° increments to calculate the angle by which the blind spot rotates because of head tilt. Results: The association between s-OCR amplitude and head-tilt angle showed a sinusoidal relationship. In blind spot detection, the blind spot rotated to the opposite direction of the head tilt, and the association between the rotation angle of the blind spot and the head-tilt angle also showed a sinusoidal relationship. The rotation angle of the blind spot was strongly correlated with the s-OCR amplitude (R2≥0.94, p<0.0001). A head tilt greater than 20° with imo causes interference between adjacent test areas. Conclusions: Both the s-OCR amplitude and the rotation angle of the blind spot were correlated with the head-tilt angle by sinusoidal regression. The rotated VF was correlated with the s-OCR amplitude. During perimetry using imo, the change in the subject’s head tilt should be limited to 20°. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We developed a new portable head-mounted perimeter, “imo”, which performs visual field (VF) testing under flexible conditions without a dark room. Besides the monocular eye test, imo can present a test target randomly to either eye without occlusion (a binocular random single eye test). The performance of imo was evaluated. Methods: Using full HD transmissive LCD and high intensity LED backlights, imo can display a test target under the same test conditions as the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA). The monocular and binocular random single eye tests by imo and the HFA test were performed on 40 eyes of 20 subjects with glaucoma. VF sensitivity results by the monocular and binocular random single eye tests were compared, and these test results were further compared to those by the HFA. The subjects were asked whether they noticed which eye was being tested during the test. Results: The mean sensitivity (MS) obtained with the HFA highly correlated with the MS by the imo monocular test (R: r = 0.96, L: r = 0.94, P < 0.001) and the binocular random single eye test (R: r = 0.97, L: r = 0.98, P < 0.001). The MS values by the monocular and binocular random single eye tests also highly correlated (R: r = 0.96, L: r = 0.95, P < 0.001). No subject could detect which eye was being tested during the examination. Conclusions: The perimeter imo can obtain VF sensitivity highly compatible to that by the standard automated perimeter. The binocular random single eye test provides a non-occlusion test condition without the examinee being aware of the tested eye. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]