Optometry Research Today is a free monthly online journal that collates and summarizes the latest research about Optometry, including details on myopia, optometric practice, therapy.

Linearity can account for the similarity among conventional, frequency-doubling, and gabor-based perimetric tests in the glaucomatous macula.

Sun H, Dul MW, Swanson WH

Glaucoma Institute, State University of New York, State College of Optometry, New York, New York 10036, USA. hsun@sunyopt.edu

PURPOSES: The purposes of this study are to compare macular perimetric sensitivities for conventional size III, frequency-doubling, and Gabor stimuli in terms of Weber contrast and to provide a theoretical interpretation of the results. METHODS: Twenty-two patients with glaucoma performed four perimetric tests: a conventional Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) 10-2 test with Goldmann size III stimuli, two frequency-doubling tests (FDT 10-2, FDT Macula) with counterphase-modulated grating stimuli, and a laboratory-designed test with Gabor stimuli. Perimetric sensitivities were converted to the reciprocal of Weber contrast and sensitivities from different tests were compared using the Bland-Altman method. Effects of ganglion cell loss on perimetric sensitivities were then simulated with a two-stage neural model. RESULTS: The average perimetric loss was similar for all stimuli until advanced stages of ganglion cell loss, in which perimetric loss tended to be greater for size III stimuli than for frequency-doubling and Gabor stimuli. Comparison of the experimental data and model simulation suggests that, in the macula, linear relations between ganglion cell loss and perimetric sensitivity loss hold for all three stimuli. CONCLUSIONS: Linear relations between perimetric loss and ganglion cell loss for all three stimuli can account for the similarity in perimetric loss until advanced stages. The results do not support the hypothesis that redundancy for frequency-doubling stimuli is lower than redundancy for size III stimuli.

Published 14 July 2006 in Optom Vis Sci, 83(7): 455-65.
Full-text of this article is available online (may require subscription).

© 2005-2008 Optometry Research Today. All Rights Reserved.