Functional visual fields: relationship of visual field areas to self-reported function.

Purpose: The aim of this study is to relate areas of the visual field to functional difficulties to inform the development of a binocular visual field assessment that can reflect the functional consequences of visual field loss.
Methods: Fifty-two participants with peripheral visual field loss undertook binocular assessment of visual fields using the 30-2 and 60-4 SITA Fast programs on the Humphrey Field Analyser, and mean thresholds were derived. Binocular visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and near reading performance were also determined. Self-reported overall and mobility function were assessed using the Dutch ICF Activity Inventory.
Results: Greater visual field loss (0-60°) was associated with worse self-reported function both overall (R ² = 0.50; p < 0.0001), and for mobility (R ² = 0.64; p < 0.0001). Central (0-30°) and peripheral (30-60°) visual field areas were similarly related to mobility function (R ² = 0.61, p < 0.0001 and R ² = 0.63, p < 0.0001 respectively), although the peripheral (30-60°) visual field was the best predictor of mobility self-reported function in multiple regression analyses. Superior and inferior visual field areas related similarly to mobility function (R ² = 0.56, p < 0.0001 and R ² = 0.67, p < 0.0001 respectively). The inferior field was found to be the best predictor of mobility function in multiple regression analysis.
Conclusion: Mean threshold of the binocular visual field to 60° eccentricity is a good predictor of self-reported function overall, and particularly of mobility function. Both the central (0-30°) and peripheral (30-60°) mean threshold are good predictors of self-reported function, but the peripheral (30-0°) field is a slightly better predictor of mobility function, and should not be ignored when considering functional consequences of field loss. The inferior visual field is a slightly stronger predictor of perceived overall and mobility function than the superior field.
(© 2017 The Authors Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics © 2017 The College of Optometrists.)