Skip navigation
Skip navigation

Modeling the relative influence of fixation and sampling errors on retest variability in perimetry

Maddess, T.

Description

BACKGROUND: Our previous studies have shown that in standard automated perimetry (SAP) undersampling occurs if sensitivity varies across a visual field faster than the Nyquist rate (Nq) for the standard sampling interval of 6°. This undersampling was shown to be a major source of test-retest variability. This study first tests some of the assumptions of the undersampling idea, and then determines the relative contributions to test-retest variability of normal eye movements and undersampling....[Show more]

dc.contributor.authorMaddess, T.
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-22T05:28:20Z
dc.date.available2015-05-22T05:28:20Z
dc.identifier.issn0721-832X
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/13561
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Our previous studies have shown that in standard automated perimetry (SAP) undersampling occurs if sensitivity varies across a visual field faster than the Nyquist rate (Nq) for the standard sampling interval of 6°. This undersampling was shown to be a major source of test-retest variability. This study first tests some of the assumptions of the undersampling idea, and then determines the relative contributions to test-retest variability of normal eye movements and undersampling. METHODS: In all models fixational jitter was at normal levels. The first part investigates the effects of the jitter on the Fourier spectra of fields, and stimulus size effects. In the second part fields are smoothed in six gradations up to and beyond the point where no undersampling could occur. The spatial smoothing gradations covered nil to < Nq/4. For each smoothing level the resulting retest variability was determined for each of 11 bands of scotoma depth (0 to -28.5 dB). RESULTS: As is commonly reported, and as undersampling predicts, retest variability was largest for deeper scotoma depths. When smoothing suppressed all undersampling effects, the inter-quartile range of the residual retest variability averaged only 2.3 ± 0.33 dB, much smaller than for unsmoothed fields (p < 0.003). For the five deepest scotoma depth bands (range, -16.5 to -28.5 dB) retest variability was smaller by 6.0 ± 0.5 dB (p < 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Retest variability appears in large part to be driven by undersampling. In real fields, the remaining variance would come from fixation errors and physiological sources.
dc.description.sponsorshipThis research was supported by the Australian Research Council through the ARC Centre of Excellence in Vision Science (CE0561903).
dc.publisherSpringer Verlag
dc.rights© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
dc.sourceGraefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology
dc.subjectcomputer simulation
dc.subjectfixation, ocular
dc.subjectglaucoma
dc.subjecthumans
dc.subjectreproducibility of results
dc.subjectvision disorders
dc.subjectvisual field tests
dc.subjectselection bias
dc.subjectvisual fields
dc.titleModeling the relative influence of fixation and sampling errors on retest variability in perimetry
dc.typeJournal article
local.identifier.citationvolume252
dcterms.dateAccepted2014-07-14
dc.date.issued2014-07-30
local.identifier.absfor111301 - Ophthalmology
local.identifier.absfor110900 - NEUROSCIENCES
local.identifier.ariespublicationa383154xPUB1395
local.publisher.urlhttp://link.springer.com/
local.type.statusPublished Version
local.contributor.affiliationMaddess, T., Eccles Institute of Neuroscience, John Curtin School of Medical Research, The Australian National University
dc.relationhttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/CE0561903
local.identifier.essn1435-702X
local.bibliographicCitation.issue10
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage1611
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage1619
local.identifier.doi10.1007/s00417-014-2751-y
dc.date.updated2015-12-10T10:43:57Z
local.identifier.scopusID2-s2.0-84925883796
local.identifier.thomsonID000344631600013
CollectionsANU Research Publications

Download

There are no files associated with this item.


Items in Open Research are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Updated:  19 May 2020/ Responsible Officer:  University Librarian/ Page Contact:  Library Systems & Web Coordinator