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
. 2014:2014:206082.
doi: 10.1155/2014/206082. Epub 2014 Jun 23.

Testing of visual field with virtual reality goggles in manual and visual grasp modes

Dariusz Wroblewski  1 , Brian A Francis  2 , Alfredo Sadun  2 , Ghazal Vakili  3 , Vikas Chopra  2
Affiliations

Testing of visual field with virtual reality goggles in manual and visual grasp modes

Dariusz Wroblewski et al. Biomed Res Int. 2014.

Abstract

Automated perimetry is used for the assessment of visual function in a variety of ophthalmic and neurologic diseases. We report development and clinical testing of a compact, head-mounted, and eye-tracking perimeter (VirtualEye) that provides a more comfortable test environment than the standard instrumentation. VirtualEye performs the equivalent of a full threshold 24-2 visual field in two modes: (1) manual, with patient response registered with a mouse click, and (2) visual grasp, where the eye tracker senses change in gaze direction as evidence of target acquisition. 59 patients successfully completed the test in manual mode and 40 in visual grasp mode, with 59 undergoing the standard Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) testing. Large visual field defects were reliably detected by VirtualEye. Point-by-point comparison between the results obtained with the different modalities indicates: (1) minimal systematic differences between measurements taken in visual grasp and manual modes, (2) the average standard deviation of the difference distributions of about 5 dB, and (3) a systematic shift (of 4-6 dB) to lower sensitivities for VirtualEye device, observed mostly in high dB range. The usability survey suggested patients' acceptance of the head-mounted device. The study appears to validate the concepts of a head-mounted perimeter and the visual grasp mode.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a) Components of portable VirtualEye perimeter. (b) Back view of VirtualEye head-mounted visor. The device is secured on patient's head with adjustable headband (top of the picture).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Graphical user interface (Windows) for VirtualEye perimeter.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Example of luminance and dB calibration for OLED microdisplay. (a) Measured luminance versus video control level (gray level). Average luminance obtained in a series of 6 measurements performed over a period of 8 months with error bars representing the standard deviation. Solid red line is a cubic spline fit to the measured averaged data. (b) Stimulus intensity on the Humphrey decibel scale (dB) as a function of video level. Points represent dB values corresponding to consecutive integer video levels on 8-bit scale. Solid lines represent standard deviation associated with reproducibility of luminance measurements.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Case example of glaucoma with comparable retinal sensitivity values measured by standard (HFA) perimetry and VirtualEye in visual grasp (VE/VG) and manual (VE/MAN) modes. “Delta dB” denotes the difference in measured sensitivity between respective devices.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Example of results obtained for a normal eye, otherwise the same as Figure 4.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Summary of interplatform comparisons.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Distributions of retinal sensitivity measurements related to the reference platform test values in selected ranges (0–4 dB, 8–12 dB, 18–22 dB, and 28–32, yellow bars). Vertical axes: the fraction of measurements obtained in each 1 dB interval, horizontal axes: measured sensitivity (dB). “n” is the number of data points available for each comparison.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Zadnik K. The Ocular Examination. Measurements and Findings. Philadelphia, Pa, USA: WB Saunders; 1997.
    1. Anderson DR, Patella VM. Automated Static Perimetry. 2nd edition. St. Louis, Mo, USA: Mosby; 1999.
    1. Delgado MF, Nguyen NTA, Cox TA, et al. Automated perimetry: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2002;109(12):2362–2374. - PubMed
    1. McKendrick AM. Recent developments in perimetry: test stimuli and procedures. Clinical and Experimental Optometry. 2005;88(2):73–80. - PubMed
    1. Iester M, Altieri M, Vittone P, Calabria G, Zingirian M, Traverso CE. Detection of glaucomatous visual field defect by nonconventional perimetry. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2003;135(1):35–39. - PubMed

Publication types