Microperimetry reliability assessed from fixation performance
<p><strong>Purpose:</strong> Microperimetry provides an accurate assessment of central retinal sensitivity due to its fundus-tracking capability, but it has limited reliability indicators. One method currently employed, fixation loss, samples the optic nerve blind spot for positive...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology
2023
|
| _version_ | 1797111108931158016 |
|---|---|
| author | Josan, AS Farrance, I Taylor, LJ Adeyoju, D Buckley, TMW Jolly, JK MacLaren, RE |
| author_facet | Josan, AS Farrance, I Taylor, LJ Adeyoju, D Buckley, TMW Jolly, JK MacLaren, RE |
| author_sort | Josan, AS |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | <p><strong>Purpose:</strong> Microperimetry provides an accurate assessment of central retinal sensitivity due to its fundus-tracking capability, but it has limited reliability indicators. One method currently employed, fixation loss, samples the optic nerve blind spot for positive responses; however, it is unclear if these responses arise from unintentional button presses or from tracking failure leading to stimuli misplacement. We investigated the relationship between blind spot scotoma positive responses (termed scotoma responses) and fixation.</p>
<p><strong>Methods:</strong> Part 1 of the study involved a custom grid of 181 points centered on the optic nerve that was constructed to map physiological blind spots in primary and simulated eccentric fixation positions. Scotoma responses and the 63% and 95% fixation bivariate contour ellipse areas (BCEA63 and BCEA95) were analyzed. In Part 2, fixation data from controls and patients with retinal diseases (234 eyes from 118 patients) were collected.</p>
<p><strong>Results:</strong> Part 1, a linear mixed model of 32 control participants, demonstrated significant (P < 0.001) correlation between scotoma responses and BCEA95. In Part 2, the upper 95% confidence intervals for BCEA95 were 3.7 deg2 for controls, 27.6 deg2 for choroideremia, 23.1 deg2 for typical rod–cone dystrophies, 21.4 deg2 for Stargardt disease, and 111.3 deg2 for age-related macular degeneration. Incorporating all pathology groups into an overall statistic resulted in an upper limit BCEA95 = 29.6 deg2.</p>
<p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Microperimetry reliability is significantly correlated to fixation performance, and BCEA95 provides a surrogate marker for test accuracy. Examinations of healthy individuals and patients with retinal disease are deemed unreliable if BCEA95 > 4 deg2 and BCEA95 > 30 deg2, respectively.</p>
<p><strong>Translational Relevance:</strong> Microperimetry reliability should be assessed using fixation
performance as summarized by BCEA95 rather than the level of fixation losses.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T08:04:10Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:c7e7cccd-e61a-4c64-9bf9-69d6f0963181 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T08:04:10Z |
| publishDate | 2023 |
| publisher | Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:c7e7cccd-e61a-4c64-9bf9-69d6f09631812023-10-16T07:44:01ZMicroperimetry reliability assessed from fixation performanceJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:c7e7cccd-e61a-4c64-9bf9-69d6f0963181EnglishSymplectic ElementsAssociation for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology2023Josan, ASFarrance, ITaylor, LJAdeyoju, DBuckley, TMWJolly, JKMacLaren, RE<p><strong>Purpose:</strong> Microperimetry provides an accurate assessment of central retinal sensitivity due to its fundus-tracking capability, but it has limited reliability indicators. One method currently employed, fixation loss, samples the optic nerve blind spot for positive responses; however, it is unclear if these responses arise from unintentional button presses or from tracking failure leading to stimuli misplacement. We investigated the relationship between blind spot scotoma positive responses (termed scotoma responses) and fixation.</p> <p><strong>Methods:</strong> Part 1 of the study involved a custom grid of 181 points centered on the optic nerve that was constructed to map physiological blind spots in primary and simulated eccentric fixation positions. Scotoma responses and the 63% and 95% fixation bivariate contour ellipse areas (BCEA63 and BCEA95) were analyzed. In Part 2, fixation data from controls and patients with retinal diseases (234 eyes from 118 patients) were collected.</p> <p><strong>Results:</strong> Part 1, a linear mixed model of 32 control participants, demonstrated significant (P < 0.001) correlation between scotoma responses and BCEA95. In Part 2, the upper 95% confidence intervals for BCEA95 were 3.7 deg2 for controls, 27.6 deg2 for choroideremia, 23.1 deg2 for typical rod–cone dystrophies, 21.4 deg2 for Stargardt disease, and 111.3 deg2 for age-related macular degeneration. Incorporating all pathology groups into an overall statistic resulted in an upper limit BCEA95 = 29.6 deg2.</p> <p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Microperimetry reliability is significantly correlated to fixation performance, and BCEA95 provides a surrogate marker for test accuracy. Examinations of healthy individuals and patients with retinal disease are deemed unreliable if BCEA95 > 4 deg2 and BCEA95 > 30 deg2, respectively.</p> <p><strong>Translational Relevance:</strong> Microperimetry reliability should be assessed using fixation performance as summarized by BCEA95 rather than the level of fixation losses.</p> |
| spellingShingle | Josan, AS Farrance, I Taylor, LJ Adeyoju, D Buckley, TMW Jolly, JK MacLaren, RE Microperimetry reliability assessed from fixation performance |
| title | Microperimetry reliability assessed from fixation performance |
| title_full | Microperimetry reliability assessed from fixation performance |
| title_fullStr | Microperimetry reliability assessed from fixation performance |
| title_full_unstemmed | Microperimetry reliability assessed from fixation performance |
| title_short | Microperimetry reliability assessed from fixation performance |
| title_sort | microperimetry reliability assessed from fixation performance |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT josanas microperimetryreliabilityassessedfromfixationperformance AT farrancei microperimetryreliabilityassessedfromfixationperformance AT taylorlj microperimetryreliabilityassessedfromfixationperformance AT adeyojud microperimetryreliabilityassessedfromfixationperformance AT buckleytmw microperimetryreliabilityassessedfromfixationperformance AT jollyjk microperimetryreliabilityassessedfromfixationperformance AT maclarenre microperimetryreliabilityassessedfromfixationperformance |