The sensitivities of the 500 healthy VF results were pooled together to generate the mean, standard deviation (SD), and probability score (
P score) distribution limits for each of the clustering methods. Point-wise, location-specific probability scores were calculated using a method similar to the work of Asman and Heijl.
9 To generate the
P score, the individual sensitivity first was compared with the mean and SD at that location to generate a Z score. The
P score was then determined from
P value calculated from the normal distribution (
Table 2).
The following two criteria for hemifield analysis were used: (1) asymmetry in the superior-inferior distributions (the “asymmetry” criterion), and (2) individual matched-sector pair distributions analyzed separately (the “sector pair” criterion) for each cluster (summarized in
Fig. 2A). For the asymmetry criterion, the sum of
P scores within the superior sector was determined for each healthy subject. The sum of
P scores within the inferior sector was then subtracted from this to get a superior-inferior difference in
P score. The upper (i.e., positive difference, where the superior cluster has a higher
P score) and lower (i.e., negative difference, where the inferior cluster has a higher
P score) 0.5
th percentiles across the 500 normal VF results was obtained. This therefore represents the 1% two-tailed distribution limits, with
P scores outside the upper and lower 0.5
th percentiles were considered to be outside normal limits (ONL). For the sector pair criterion, the 0.5
th percentile of each individual sector pairs (superior and inferior) was determined. This represents a 0.5
th one-tailed distribution limit, whereby
P scores results that were outside the 0.5
th percentile for both superior and inferior sector pairs were considered ONL. We only report on within normal limits (WNL) and ONL results; borderline and other possible results such as generalized reduction were not examined.
In the GHT, normative comparisons are performed by comparing individual test locations to its matching underlying normal location (
Fig. 2B). In comparison, the pattern recognition pseudocolor theme maps indicate locations with the same sensitivity signature, and thus the underlying normative data were pooled to obtain descriptive statistics from a larger overall sample (mean, SD, and distribution limits) for normative comparisons (
Fig. 2C). As the GHT clusters consist of points with different sensitivity signatures (i.e., they come from different CSIs), the sensitivity data were not pooled in a similar fashion. As the sensitivities are different, they would therefore contribute different levels of variability, thus confounding the resultant distribution.