Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Test-retest repeatability of the imo binocular random single-eye test and Humphrey monocular test in patients with glaucoma

  • Clinical Investigation
  • Published:
Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the reproducibility of the imo binocular random single-eye test (BRSET) and Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) monocular test in patients with glaucoma.

Study design

Retrospective observational study.

Methods

We measured the visual fields (VF) of patients with glaucoma using the BRSET and HFA. All tests were repeated two months later. Mean sensitivity (MS), mean deviation (MD), sensitivity at each test location, and reliability indices were compared between the test days. Wilcoxon signed-rank test, interclass correlation coefficient (ICC), correlation coefficients, and Bland–Altman plots were generated for analysis.

Results

We analyzed the VFs of 46 patients with glaucoma. There were no test-retest differences for MS and MD, and ICCs were > 0.9 for MS and MD in both perimeters. Inter-test correlations for MS and MD were high. The limits of agreement (LoAs) (lower, upper limit) between test days for MS were (− 3.4, 4.0) for BRSET and (-3.3, 3.0) for HFA. The LoA for MD was (− 3.3, 3.8) for BRSET and (− 3.2, 2.9) for HFA. Sensitivity at each testing location was more variable between testing days for BRSET than for HFA. For reliability indices, LoAs between testing days were wider for BRSET than for HFA.

Conclusion

The imo BRSET showed similar reproducibility to HFA in MS and MD. However, sensitivity at each test location varied more for BRSET than for HFA. Further studies are needed to verify the reproducibility of the imo BRSET.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gardiner SK, Demirel S. Assessment of patient opinions of different clinical tests used in the management of glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:2127–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chew SS, Kerr NM, Wong AB, Craig JP, Chou CY, Danesh-Meyer HV. Anxiety in visual field testing. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100:1128–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hollander DA, Volpe NJ, Moster ML, Liu GT, Balcer LJ, Judy KD, et al. Use of a portable head mounted perimetry system to assess bedside visual fields. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000;84:1185–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Wroblewski D, Francis BA, Sadun A, Vakili G, Chopra V. Testing of visual field with virtual reality goggles in manual and visual grasp modes. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:206082.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Kong YX, He M, Crowston JG, Vingrys AJ. A comparison of perimetric results from a tablet perimeter and Humphrey Field Analyzer in glaucoma patients. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2016;5:2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Nakanishi M, Wang YT, Jung TP, Zao JK, Chien YY, Diniz-Filho A, et al. Detecting glaucoma with a portable brain-computer interface for objective assessment of visual function loss. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017;135:550–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Prea SM, Kong YXG, Mehta A, He M, Crowston JG, Gupta V, et al. Six-month longitudinal comparison of a portable tablet perimeter with the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Am J Ophthalmol. 2018;190:9–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jones PR, Smith ND, Bi W, Crabb DP. Portable perimetry using eye-tracking on a tablet computer-A feasibility assessment. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2019;8:17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Mees L, Upadhyaya S, Kumar P, Kotawala S, Haran S, Rajasekar S, et al. Validation of a head-mounted virtual reality visual field screening device. J Glaucoma. 2020;29:86–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pradhan ZS, Sircar T, Agrawal H, Rao HL, Bopardikar A, Devi S, et al. Comparison of the performance of a novel, smartphone-based, head-mounted perimeter (GearVision) with the Humphrey Field Analyzer. J Glaucoma. 2021;30:e146–e52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Razeghinejad R, Gonzalez-Garcia A, Myers JS, Katz LJ. Preliminary report on a novel virtual reality perimeter compared with standard automated perimetry. J Glaucoma. 2021;30:17–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Matsumoto C, Yamao S, Nomoto H, Takada S, Okuyama S, Kimura S, et al. Visual field testing with head-mounted perimeter ‘imo’. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0161974.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Hayashi Y, Sakamoto M, Murai Y, Nishisho R, Hayashida M, Mori S, et al. Utility of the imo®"Binocular random single-eye test” in Glaucoma practice. Nippon Ganka Gakkai zasshi. 2021;125:530–8. (In Japanese).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kimura T, Matsumoto C, Nomoto H. Comparison of head-mounted perimeter (imo®) and Humphrey Field Analyzer. Clin Ophthalmol. 2019;13:501–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Sakamoto M, Sawamura H, Aihara M, Goseki T, Ikeda T, Ishikawa H, et al. Agreement in the detection of chiasmal and postchiasmal visual field defects between imo binocular random single-eye test and Humphrey monocular test. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2022;66:413–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Goseki T, Ishikawa H, Shoji N. Bilateral concurrent eye examination with a head-mounted perimeter for diagnosing functional visual loss. Neuroophthalmology. 2016;40:281–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Montesano G, Bryan SR, Crabb DP, Fogagnolo P, Oddone F, McKendrick AM, et al. A comparison between the compass fundus perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Ophthalmology. 2019;126:242–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Russell RA, Crabb DP, Malik R, Garway-Heath DF. The relationship between variability and sensitivity in large-scale longitudinal visual field data. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:5985–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Artes PH, Iwase A, Ohno Y, Kitazawa Y, Chauhan BC. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA fast strategies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:2654–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Goukon H, Hirasawa K, Kasahara M, Matsumura K, Shoji N. Comparison of Humphrey Field Analyzer and imo visual field test results in patients with glaucoma and pseudo-fixation loss. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0224711.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. João CAR, Scanferla L, Jansonius NM. Binocular interactions in glaucoma patients with nonoverlapping visual field defects: contrast summation, rivalry, and phase combination. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2021;62(12):9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Fuhr PS, Hershner TA, Daum KM. Ganzfeld blankout occurs in bowl perimetry and is eliminated by translucent occlusion. Arch Ophthalmol. 1990;108:983–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Aydin P, Acaroglu G, Cuhadaroglu H, Zilelioglu O. Comparison of translucent versus opaque occluders in automated static perimetry. Neuroophthalmology. 1997;17:185–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wakayama A, Matsumoto C, Ayato Y, Shimomura Y. Comparison of monocular sensitivities measured with and without occlusion using the head-mounted perimeter imo. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0210691.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Effect of dichoptic adaptation on frequency-doubling perimetry. Optom Vis Sci. 2002;79:88–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Anderson AJ, McKendrick AM. Quantifying adaptation and fatigue effects in frequency doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:943–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ishibashi T, Matsumoto C, Nomoto H, Tanabe F, Narita I, Ishibashi M, et al. Measurement of fixational eye movements with the head-mounted perimeter imo. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2022;11(8):26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Saunders LJ, Russell RA, Crabb DP. Measurement precision in a series of visual fields acquired by the standard and fast versions of the swedish interactive thresholding algorithm: analysis of large-scale data from clinics. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133:74–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Heijl A, Patella VM, Flanagan JG, Iwase A, Leung CK, Tuulonen A, et al. False positive responses in standard automated perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2022;233:180–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:2201–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bengtsson B. Reliability of computerized perimetric threshold tests as assessed by reliability indices and threshold reproducibility in patients with suspect and manifest glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2000;78:519–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Yohannan J, Wang J, Brown J, Chauhan BC, Boland MV, Friedman DS, et al. Evidence-based criteria for assessment of visual field reliability. Ophthalmology. 2017;124:1612–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The imo perimeter was provided free of charge to Kobe University Hospital (CREWT Medical Systems). The authors would like to thank Enagfo (www.enago.jp) for the English language review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hyogo Prefectural Tamba Medical Center, Tamba, Japan

    Hideaki Toyokuni

  2. Division of Ophthalmology, Department of Surgery, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-2, Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, 650-0017, Japan

    Mari Sakamoto, Kaori Ueda, Takuji Kurimoto, Yuko Yamada-Nakanishi & Makoto Nakamura

Authors
  1. Hideaki Toyokuni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mari Sakamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kaori Ueda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Takuji Kurimoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yuko Yamada-Nakanishi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Makoto Nakamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mari Sakamoto.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

H. Toyokuni, None; M. Sakamoto, None; K. Ueda, None; T. Kurimoto, None; Y. Y-Nakanishi, None; M. Nakamura, None.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Corresponding Author: Mari Sakamoto

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Toyokuni, H., Sakamoto, M., Ueda, K. et al. Test-retest repeatability of the imo binocular random single-eye test and Humphrey monocular test in patients with glaucoma. Jpn J Ophthalmol 67, 578–589 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-023-01007-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-023-01007-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation