Effects of Reaction Time on the Kinetic Visual Field

  • Xiaoya Yu
  • Jinglong Wu
  • Shuhei Miyamoto
  • Shengfu Lu
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6889)

Abstract

Kinetic visual field refers to the visual range in which a moving target can be seen. The reaction time in traditional Kinetic Perimetry was the time from the target was identified to the subject responded, without taking into account individual simple reaction time (SRT). This is problematic in that it mixes the evaluations of human visual performance with behavior performance. We redefined kinetic visual field by analyzed the components of the RT, and then measured SRT and kinetic visual field of six normal subjects, using a modified Goldman kinetic perimeter. The results showed that the newly defined kinetic visual field was wider than traditional defined, because the newly defined kinetic visual field without including SRT. Thus, Kinetic Perimetry using the newly defined method eliminates individual SRT differences to produce what we believe to be a more accurate evaluation indicator of human visual functions.

Keywords

Visual Field Target Condition Behavioral Trait Target Size Simple Reaction Time 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Webster’s New WorldTM Medical Dictionary, 3rd edn. Wiley Publishing, Inc., Chichester (May 2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ikeda, M., Uchikawa, K., Saida, S.: Static and dynamic functional visual fields. Optica Acta 26, 1103–1113 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wu, J., Lu, S., Miyamoto, S., Hayashi, Y.: New definitions of kinetic visual acuity and kinetic visual field and their aging effects. IATSS Research 33(1), 27–34 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Spahr, J.: Optimization of the presentation pattern in automated static perimetry. Vision Res. 15, 1275–1281 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnson, C.A., Keltner, J.L., Lewis, R.A.: Automated kinetic perimetry: an efficient method of evaluating peripheral visual field loss. Appl. Opt. 26, 1409–1414 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shigaki, H., Miyao, M.: Implications for Dynamic Visual Acuity with Changes in Age and Sex. Percept. Mot. Skills 77, 835–839 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mashimo, I.: Sports Vision: Vision for Sports, 2nd edn. NAP Ltd. (1997) (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hasjimoto, S.: Development of a Kinetic Visual Field Measuring Program Using an Automatic Perimeter. Medical Journal of Kinki University 28, 207–221 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Understanding Visual Fields, Part I; Goldman Perimetry. Journal of Ophthalmic Medical Technology 2(2) (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hasegawa, T., Yamashita, M., Suzuki, T., et al.: Active linear head motion improves dynamic visual acuity in pursuing a high-speed moving object. Exp. Brain Res. 194, 505–516 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wu, J., Lu, S., Hayashi, Y.: Study and Development of a Visual Acuity Equipment with Multifunction for Three Subjects at Once. The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers – Collected Papers. Group C 74-737, 83–89 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ramirez, A.M., Chaya, C.J., Gordon, L.K., Giaconi, J.A.: A comparison of semiautomated versus manual Goldman kinetic perimetry in patients with visually significant glaucoma. J. Glaucoma 17(2), 111–117 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luce, R.D.: Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. Oxford Univ. Press, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Whelan, R.: Effective Analysis of Reaction Time Data. The Psychological Record 58, 475–482 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schiefer, U., Strasburger, H., Becker, S.T., et al.: Reaction time in automated kinetic perimetry: effects of stimulus luminance, eccentricity, and movement direction. Vision Res. 41, 2157–2164 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johnson, C.A., Keltner, J.L., Balestrerya, F.: Effects of target size and eccentricity on visual detection and resolution. Vision Research 18, 1217–1222 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parrish, R.K., Shiffman, J., Anderson, D.R.: Static and kinetic visual field testing, reproducibility in normal volunteers. Archives of Ophthalmology 102, 1497–1502 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Poulain, I., Giraudet, G., Dobrescu, N.: Age-related changes in perception of verticality with a static or kinetic visual-field disturbance. Perception 33 ECVP (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jaffe, G.J., Alvarado, J.A., Juster, R.P.: Age-related changes of the normal visual field. Arch. Ophthalmol. 104(7), 1021–1025 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haas, A., Flammer, J., Schneider, U.: Influence of age on the visual fields of normal subjects. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 101(2), 199–203 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Drance, S.M., Berry, V., Hughes, A.: Studies on the effects of age on the central and peripheral isopters of the visual field in normal subjects. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 63(6), 1667–1672 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaoya Yu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jinglong Wu
    • 1
    • 3
  • Shuhei Miyamoto
    • 4
  • Shengfu Lu
    • 1
  1. 1.International WIC InstituteBeijing University of TechnologyBeijingP.R. China
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceBeijing Institute of EducationBeijingP.R. China
  3. 3.Biomedical Engineering Laboratory, Division of Industrial Innovation Sciences, The Graduate School of Natural Science and TechnologyOkayama UniversityOkayamaJapan
  4. 4.Department of Design Fukushima BranchNOK CorporationFukushimaJapan

Personalised recommendations