| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 From the Optics and Visual Assessment Laboratory, Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, Davis; and 2 Discoveries in Sight Research Laboratories, Devers Eye Institute, Legacy Health Systems, Portland, Oregon. This work was performed while CAJ was in the Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, Davis.
PURPOSE. To compare methods of predicting binocular visual field sensitivity of patients with glaucoma from monocular visual field data.
METHODS. Monocular and binocular visual fields were obtained for 111 patients with varying degrees of glaucomatous damage in one or both eyes, using the Humphrey 30-2 full-threshold procedure. Four binocular sensitivity prediction models were evaluated: BEST EYE, predictions based on individual values for the most sensitive eye, defined by mean deviation (MD); AVERAGE EYE, predictions based on the average sensitivity between eyes at each visual field location; BEST LOCATION, predictions based on the highest sensitivity between eyes at each visual field location; and BINOCULAR SUMMATION, predictions based on binocular summation of sensitivity between eyes at each location. Differences between actual and predicted binocular sensitivities were calculated for each model.
RESULTS. The average difference between predicted and actual binocular sensitivities was close to zero for the BINOCULAR SUMMATION and BEST LOCATION models, with 95% of all predictions being within ±3 dB of actual binocular sensitivities. The best eye (MD) prediction had an average error of 1.5 dB (95% confidence limits [CL], ±3.7 dB). The average eye prediction was the poorest, with an average error of 3.7 dB (95% CL, ±4.6 dB).
CONCLUSIONS. The BINOCULAR SUMMATION and BEST LOCATION models provided better predictions of binocular visual field sensitivity than the other two models, with a statistically significant difference in performance. The small difference in performance between the BINOCULAR SUMMATION and BEST LOCATION models was not statistically significant. For evaluations of functional visual field influences on task performance, daily activities, and related quality-of-life issues, either the BINOCULAR SUMMATION or BEST LOCATION model provides good estimates of binocular visual field sensitivity.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. E. Hassan, K. A. Turano, B. Munoz, C. Munro, K. B. Roche, and S. K. West Cognitive and Vision Loss Affects the Topography of the Attentional Visual Field Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., October 1, 2008; 49(10): 4672 - 4678. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. M. F. Owen, D. P. Crabb, E. T. White, A. C. Viswanathan, D. F. Garway-Heath, and R. A. Hitchings Glaucoma and Fitness to Drive: Using Binocular Visual Fields to Predict a Milestone to Blindness Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., June 1, 2008; 49(6): 2449 - 2455. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. A. Aspinall, Z. K. Johnson, A. Azuara-Blanco, A. Montarzino, R. Brice, and A. Vickers Evaluation of Quality of Life and Priorities of Patients with Glaucoma Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., May 1, 2008; 49(5): 1907 - 1915. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. S. Rubin, E. S. W. Ng, K. Bandeen-Roche, P. M. Keyl, E. E. Freeman, S. K. West, and the SEE Project Team A Prospective, Population-Based Study of the Role of Visual Impairment in Motor Vehicle Crashes among Older Drivers: The SEE Study Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., April 1, 2007; 48(4): 1483 - 1491. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. E. Freeman, B. Munoz, K. A. Turano, and S. K. West Dynamic Measures of Visual Function and Their Relationship to Self-Report of Visual Functioning Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., November 1, 2006; 47(11): 4762 - 4766. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. E. Freeman, B. Munoz, K. A. Turano, and S. K. West Measures of Visual Function and Their Association with Driving Modification in Older Adults Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., February 1, 2006; 47(2): 514 - 520. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Patel, K. A. Turano, A. T. Broman, K. Bandeen-Roche, B. Munoz, and S. K. West Measures of Visual Function and Percentage of Preferred Walking Speed in Older Adults: The Salisbury Eye Evaluation Project Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., January 1, 2006; 47(1): 65 - 71. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. T. Broman, S. K. West, B. Munoz, K. Bandeen-Roche, G. S. Rubin, and K. A. Turano Divided Visual Attention as a Predictor of Bumping while Walking: The Salisbury Eye Evaluation Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., September 1, 2004; 45(9): 2955 - 2960. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D P Crabb, F W Fitzke, R A Hitchings, and A C Viswanathan A practical approach to measuring the visual field component of fitness to drive Br. J. Ophthalmol., September 1, 2004; 88(9): 1191 - 1196. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. C. Javitt, C. Owsley, and G. McGwin, Jr Risk of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Patients With Cataract Surgery JAMA, November 13, 2002; 288(18): 2262 - 2263. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. D. Jampel, D. S. Friedman, H. Quigley, and R. Miller Correlation of the Binocular Visual Field with Patient Assessment of Vision Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., April 1, 2002; 43(4): 1059 - 1067. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
