Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Mar 11:8:523-8.
doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S54524. eCollection 2014.

Visual field examination using a video projector: comparison with Humphrey perimeter

Dimitrios Brouzas  1 , Stylianos Tsapakis  1 , Eirini Nitoda  1 , Marilita M Moschos  1
Affiliations

Visual field examination using a video projector: comparison with Humphrey perimeter

Dimitrios Brouzas et al. Clin Ophthalmol. .

Abstract

Purpose: To present a method of visual field examination using a video projector. Also, we compare our results with those of a Humphrey perimeter, which is accepted as standard in automated perimetry.

Materials and methods: Software implementing a full-threshold 4-2-step staircase algorithm for the central 30-2 of the visual field (76 points) has been developed and tested in nine eyes of seven patients using an Epson TW 700 video projector. The results were compared to those obtained from the same patients using the Humphrey perimeter.

Results: High correlation between the video projector visual fields and those of the Humphrey perimeter was found. The point-to-point correlation coefficient ranged from 0.75 to 0.90, with P<0.0001 for each eye.

Conclusion: Visual field examination results using a video projector have high correlation with those of a Humphrey perimeter. The method is possibly suitable for clinical use.

Keywords: automated perimetry; computerized perimetry; video projector; visual field software; visual fields.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The patient sits comfortably in front of a video-projector screen. The 76 test points are shown with the fixation target.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Geometry relations between projector screen and a classical perimeter bowl.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Two (A and B) short-throw projectors are under evaluation. Notice the projector-to-screen distance is small.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Results: eyes 1, 2, and 3.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Results: eyes 4, 5, and 6.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Results: eyes 7, 8, and 9.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Wu JX, Wormald R, Fitzke F, Poinoosawmy D, Nagasubramanian S, Hitchings R. Laptop computer perimetry for glaucoma screening. Invest Opthalmol Vis Sci. 1991;32:810.
    1. Quigley HA, West SK, Munoz B, Mmbaga BBO, Glovinsky Y. Examination methods for glaucoma surveys. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111:1409–1415. - PubMed
    1. Wall M, Brito C, Kutzko K. Motion detection perimetry: properties and results. In: Wall M, Heijl A, editors. Perimetry Update 1996/1997. Amsterdam: Kugler; 1997. pp. 21–33.
    1. Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Parisi L, Zeppieri M. Probing glaucoma visual damage by rarebit perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:180–184. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kasha JR, Jr, inventor, Patent Storm, assignee Visual field perimetry on a small computer screen. Oct 15, 1996. United States patent US 5565949.

LinkOut - more resources