Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

K-Train–a computer-based, interactive training program with an incorporated certification system for practicing kinetic perimetry: evaluation of acceptance and success rate

  • Clinical Investigation
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate, in an experimental study, an interactive, computer-based teaching procedure for kinetic perimetry that incorporates an evaluation system for scoring examination technique.

Methods and subjects

K-Train was developed and based on the original user interface of the new semi-automated kinetic perimetry (SKP) feature of the OCTOPUS 101 perimeter (HAAG-STREIT, Koeniz, Switzerland). The trainer creates a 3D individual “hill of vision” for a specific pathology and the trainee can individually select target characteristics and independently define origin, end and direction of each kinetic stimulus with the help of vectors. Quality of the perimetric examination can be quantitatively assessed by the ratio of intersection area and union area of the trainee’s result and the related trainer-defined original isopter. This ratio and other parameters are used to define a score of “perimetric quality”. The general acceptance of K-Train was assessed in 30 participants in two perimetric courses. The success rate was examined by comparing the scores before and after a perimetric training session.

Results

The K-Train course was graded by the participants with an average score of 1.35 (range 1–3) in a scoring system ranging from 1=excellent to 6=unsatisfactory. The average perimetric quality score increased from 48 before to 59 (max. 100) after the training (27 trainees) indicating that K-Train was able to achieve and also verify a considerable success rate.

Conclusion

The acceptance of K-Train, a computer-based, interactive tool that allows for certification, education and quality control of kinetic perimetry, is high. K-Train is capable of improving a trainee’s individual performance in kinetic perimetry and of verifying this by an appropriate scoring system.

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. 2a,b
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anderson DR (1982) Testing the field of vision. Mosby, St. Louis

    Google Scholar 

  2. Canadian Medical Association (1992) Physicians’ guide to driver examination. Canadian Medical Association, Ottawa

  3. Egge K (1984) The visual field in normal subjects. Acta Ophthalmol Suppl 169:1–64

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ferree CE, Rand G, Monroe MM (1931) Diagnostic scales for the 1 degree and 0.17 degree form field stimuli for the eight principal meridional quadrants taken separately. Arch Ophthalmol 6:518–534

    Google Scholar 

  5. Goldmann H (1945) Grundlagen exakter Perimetrie. Ophthal 109:57–70

    Google Scholar 

  6. Goldmann H (1946) Demonstration unseres neuen Projektionskugelperimeters samt theoretischen und klinischen Bemerkungen über Perimetrie. Opthalmologica 11:187–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hulbert MFG (1992) Passing the DVLC field regulations following bilateral pan-retinal photocoagulation in diabetics. Eye 6:456–460

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Johnson CA, Keltner JL (1987) Optimal rates of movement for kinetic perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol 105:73–75

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Spurr JO, Beck RW (1999) Comparison of central and peripheral visual field properties in the Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial (ONTT). Am J Ophthalmol 128:543–553

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Nowomiejska KE, Vonthein R, Krapp E, Rauscher S, Hermann A, Paetzold J, Schiefer U (2003) High resolution assessment of kinetic isopters on the stimulus size and luminance response surface. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44 (Suppl):E 1955

    Google Scholar 

  11. Paetzold J, Schiller J, Rauscher S, Schiefer U (2003) A computer application for training kinetic perimetry. In: Wall M, Mills RP (eds) Perimetry update 2002/2003. Kugler, The Hague, pp 69–73

    Google Scholar 

  12. Parisi JL, Bell RA, Yassein H (1991) Homonymous hemianoptic field defects and driving in Canada. Can J Optom 26:252–256

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Parrish RK, Schiffman J, Anderson DR (1984) Static and kinetic visual field testing-reproducibility in normal volunteers. Arch Ophthalmol 102:1497–1502

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rauscher S, Vonthein R, Sadowski B, Erdmann B, Krapp E, Schiefer U (2002) Computer-assisted kinetic perimetry (CAKP) Using the Octopus 101 perimeter: age related normal values of local thresholds using various stimulus conditions and considering individual reaction times. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43 (12) (Suppl):3810

    Google Scholar 

  15. Schiefer U, Rauscher S, Hermann A, Nowomiejska KE, Sadowski B, Vonthein R, Paetzold J, Schiller J (2003) Age dependence of normative values in semi-automated kinetic perimetry (SKP) reviewing. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44 (Suppl):E-1957

    Google Scholar 

  16. Schiefer U, Rauscher S, Paetzold J, Schiller J (2003) Realization of semi-automated kinetic perimetry (SKP) with the Interzeag 101 instrument. In: Wall M, Mills RP (eds) Perimetry update 2002/2003. Kugler, The Hague, pp 233–238

    Google Scholar 

  17. Schiefer U, Schiller J, Dietrich TJ, Besch D, Paetzold J, Vonthein R (2001) Evaluation of advanced visual field loss with computer-assisted kinetic perimetry. In: Wall M, Mills RP (eds) Perimetry update 2000/2001. Kugler, The Hague, pp 131–136

    Google Scholar 

  18. Schiefer U, Schiller J, Paetzold J, Dietrich TJ, Vonthein R, Besch D (2001) Evaluation ausgedehnter Gesichtsfelddefekte mittels computerassistierter kinetischer Perimetrie. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 218:13–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Shapiro LR, Johnson CA (1990) Quantitative evaluation of manual kinetic perimetry using computer simulation. Applied Optics 29:1445–1450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Shapiro LR, Johnson CA (1991) Evaluation of the diagnosis of visual fields. Perimetry Update 281–285

  21. Shapiro LR, Johnson CA, Kennedy RL (1989) KRAKEN. A computer simulation procedure for static, kinetic, suprathreshold static and heuristic perimetry. In: Heijl A (ed) Perimetry update 1988/89. Proceedings of the VIIIth International Perimetric Society Meeting. Kugler & Ghedini, Amsterdam

  22. Verkehrskommission der DOG (2003) Empfehlung der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft und des Berufsverbandes der Augenärzte Deutschlands zur Fahreignungsbegutachtung für den Straβenverkehr. BVA

  23. Wabbels BK, Kolling G (1999) Automatische kinetische Perimetrie mit dem Twinfield-Perimeter. Z Prakt Augenheilkd 20:401–406

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wabbels BK, Kolling G (2001) Automatische kinetische Perimetrie mit unterschiedlichen Prüfgeschwindigkeiten. Ophthalmologe 98:168–173

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Williams TD (1983) Computer-based analysis of visual fields: age-related norms for the central visual field. Can J Optom 45:166–170

    Google Scholar 

  26. Williams TD (1985) Age-related norms for the periphal visual field. Can J Optom 47:140–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Williams TD (1997) Goldmann visual field norms for age groups 25 to 75 years: I-1, III-3 and III-4 targets. Can J Optom 58:170–175

    Google Scholar 

  28. Zehnder-Albrecht S (1950) Zur Standardisierung der Perimetrie. Ophthal 120:255–270

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Eye Hospital, Department of Pathophysiology of Vision and Neuro-Ophthalmology, Tuebingen, Germany

    U. Schiefer, K. Nowomiejska, E. Krapp & J. Pätzold

  2. Tadeusz Krwawicz Chair of Ophthalmology and First Eye Hospital, Medical University, Lublin, Poland

    K. Nowomiejska

  3. Discoveries in Sight Research Laboratories, Devers Eye Institute, Portland, OR, USA

    C. A. Johnson

  4. HAAG-STREIT Inc., Koeniz, Switzerland

    U. Schiefer & J. Pätzold

  5. Welch-Allyn, Skaneateles, NY, USA

    C. A. Johnson

  6. Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA, USA

    C. A. Johnson

Authors
  1. U. Schiefer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. Nowomiejska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Krapp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Pätzold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. A. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to U. Schiefer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schiefer, U., Nowomiejska, K., Krapp, E. et al. K-Train–a computer-based, interactive training program with an incorporated certification system for practicing kinetic perimetry: evaluation of acceptance and success rate. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmo 244, 1300–1309 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-006-0291-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-006-0291-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation