Purchase this article with an account.
Jan Stapelfeldt, Şerife Seda Kucur, Nina Huber, René Höhn, Raphael Sznitman; Virtual Reality–Based and Conventional Visual Field Examination Comparison in Healthy and Glaucoma Patients. Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech. 2021;10(12):10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.10.12.10.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
Clinically evaluate the noninferiority of a custom virtual reality (VR) perimetry system when compared to a clinically and routinely used perimeter on both healthy subjects and glaucoma patients.
We use a custom-designed VR perimetry system tailored for visual field testing. The system uses Oculus Quest VR headset (Facebook Technologies, LLC, Bern, Switzerland), that includes a clicker for participant response feedback. A prospective, single center, study was conducted at the Department of Ophthalmology of the Bern University Hospital (Bern, Switzerland) for 12 months. Of the 114 participants recruited 70 subjects (36 healthy and 34 glaucoma patients with early to moderate visual field loss) were included in the study. Participants underwent perimetry tests on an Octopus 900 (Haag-Streit, Köniz, Switzerland) as well as on the custom VR perimeter. In both cases, standard dynamic strategy (DS) was used in conjunction with the G testing pattern. Collected visual fields (VFs) from both devices were then analyzed and compared.
High mean defect (MD) correlations between the two systems (Spearman, ρ ≥ 0.75) were obtained. The VR system was found to slightly underestimate VF defects in glaucoma subjects (1.4 dB). No significant bias was found with respect to eccentricity or subject age. On average, a similar number of stimuli presentations per VF was necessary when measuring glaucoma patients and healthy subjects.
This study demonstrates that a clinically used perimeter and the proposed VR perimetry system have comparable performances with respect to a number of perimetry parameters in healthy and glaucoma patients with early to moderate visual field loss.
This suggests that VR perimeters have the potential to assess VFs with high enough confidence, whereby alleviating challenges in current perimetry practices by providing a portable and more accessible visual field test.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only