Purchase this article with an account.
Henry Apfelbaum, Eli Peli; Tunnel Vision Prismatic Field Expansion:Challenges and Requirements. Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech. 2015;4(6):8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.4.6.8.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
No prismatic solution for peripheral field loss (PFL) has gained widespread acceptance. Field extended by prisms has a corresponding optical scotoma at the prism apices. True expansion can be achieved when each eye is given a different view (through visual confusion). We analyze the effects of apical scotomas and binocular visual confusion in different designs to identify constraints on any solution that is likely to meet acceptance.
Calculated perimetry diagrams were compared to perimetry with PFL patients wearing InWave channel prisms and Trifield spectacles. Percept diagrams illustrate the binocular visual confusion.
Channel prisms provide no benefit at primary gaze. Inconsequential extension was provided by InWave prisms, although accessible with moderate gaze shifts. Higher-power prisms provide greater extension, with greater paracentral scotoma loss, but require uncomfortable gaze shifts. Head turns, not eye scans, are needed to see regions lost to the apical scotomas. Trifield prisms provide field expansion at all gaze positions, but acceptance was limited by disturbing effects of central binocular visual confusion.
Field expansion when at primary gaze (where most time is spent) is needed while still providing unobstructed central vision. Paracentral multiplexing prisms we are developing that superimpose shifted and see-through views may accomplish that.
Use of the analyses and diagramming techniques presented here will be of value when considering prismatic aids for PFL, and could have prevented many unsuccessful designs and the improbable reports we cited from the literature. New designs must likely address the challenges identified here.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only