Test-Retest Variability in Visual Field Testing Using Frequency Doubling Technology

Abstract

Purpose

To quantify the magnitude of test-retest variability (TRV) for normal subjects in serial visual fields (VF) using the frequency doubling technology (FDT) instrument.

Methods

Twenty-one healthy adults, aged 23 to 60 years, underwent four serial FDT VF tests, using the full-threshold C-20 program of the Zeiss-Humphrey FDT analyzer, on one randomly chosen eye. The VF tests were spaced 2 to 4 days apart. All subjects performed two preliminary FDT tests in order to minimize any learning effect. Test-retest variability was calculated as the standard deviation of each location's sensitivity value across the four VF tests.

Results

Mean TRV (±SD) for the entire field was 2.44±1.32 dB. Mean TRV (±SD) for the superior, inferior, nasal, and temporal hemifields were 2.48±1.3, 2.40±1.4, 2.40±1.3, and 2.48±1.3 dB, respectively. Mean TRV (±SD) for the foveal location, the 4 central, and the 12 peripheral locations were 2.49±1.4, 2.16±1.2, and 2.54±1.4 dB, respectively.

Conclusions

TRV was found to be rather uniform across the visual field of the commercially available FDT device, with only a mild, clinically insignificant, effect of both eccentricity and age on TRV. Variability in the FDT VF, for normal subjects, was found to be more uniform than that of both standard and short wavelength automated perimetry. In addition, a strong inverse correlation was found, in normal subjects, between the mean sensitivity and TRV. (Eur J Ophthalmol 2007; 17: 203–7)

Keywords

Visual field Frequency doubling technology Glaucoma diagnosis Test-retest variability Human Healthy subjects

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cello

K.E.

, Nelson-Quigg

J.M.

, Johnson

C.A.

Frequency doubling technology perimetry for detection of glaucomatous visual field loss.

Am J Ophthalmol 2000; 129: 314–22.

Burnstein

, Ellish

N.J.

, Magbalon

, Higginbotham

E.J.

Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry with Humphrey visual field analysis in a glaucoma practice.

Am J Ophthalmol 2000; 129: 328–33.

Casson

, James

, Rubinstein

, Ali

Clinical comparison of frequency doubling technology perimetry and Humphrey perimetry.

Br J Ophthalmol 2001; 85: 360–2.

Kelly

D.H.

Frequency doubling in visual responses.

J Opt Soc Am 1966; 56: 1628–33.

Kelly

D.H.

Nonlinear visual responses to flickering sinusoidal gratings.

J Opt Soc Am 1981; 71: 1051–5.

Maddess

, Henry

Performance of nonlinear visual units in occular hypertension and glaucoma.

Clin Vis Sci 1992; 7: 371–83.

Quigley

H.A.

, Sanchez

R.M.

, Dunkelberger

G.R.

, L'Hernault

N.L.

, Baginski

T.A.

Chronic glaucoma selectively damages large optic nerve fibers.

Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1987; 28: 913–20.

Flammer

Fluctuations in the Visual Field.

Automated Perimetry in Glaucoma. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1985; 161–73.

Heijl

, Lindgren

, Olsson

Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field.

Arch Ophthalmol 1987; 105: 1544–9.

10.

Blumenthal

E.Z.

, Sample

P.A.

, Zangwill

, Lee

A.C.

, Kono

, Weinreb

R.N.

Comparison of long-term variability for standard and short-wavelength automated perimetry in stable glaucoma patients.

Am J Ophthalmol 2000; 129: 309–13.

11.

Kwon

Y.H.

, Park

H.J.

, Jap

, Ugurlu

, Caprioli

Test-retest variability of blue-on-yellow perimetry is greater than white-on-white perimetry in normal subjects.

Am J Ophthalmol 1998; 126: 29–36.

12.

Lester

, Capris

, Pandolfo

, Zingirian

, Traverso

C.E.

Learning effect, short-term fluctuation, and long-term fluctuation in frequency doubling technique.

Am J Ophthalmol 2000; 130: 160–4.

13.

Chauhan

B.C.

, Johnson

C.A.

Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects.

Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999; 40: 648–56.

14.

Spry

P.G.

, Johnson

C.A.

, McKendrick

A.M.

, Turpin

Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry.

Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001; 42: 1404–10.

15.

Ito

, Kawabata

, Fujimoto

, Adachi-Usami

Effect of myopia on frequency-doubling perimetry.

Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001; 42: 1107–10.

16.

Joson

P.J.

, Kamantigue

M.E.

, Chen

P.P.

Learning effects among perimetric novices in frequency doubling technology perimetry.

Ophthalmology 2002; 109: 757–60.

17.

Horani

, Frenkel

, Yahalom

, Farber

M.D.

, Ticho

, Blumenthal

E.Z.

The learning effect in visual field testing of healthy subjects using frequency doubling technology.

J Glaucoma 2002; 11: 511–6.

18.

Wadood

A.C.

, Azuara-Blanco

, Aspinall

, Taguri

, King

A.J.

Sensitivity and specificity of frequency-doubling technology, tendency-oriented perimetry, and Humphrey Swedish interactive threshold algorithm-fast perimetry in a glaucoma practice.

Am J Ophthalmol 2002; 133: 327–32.

19.

Sample

P.A.

, Bosworth

C.F.

, Blumenthal

E.Z.

, Girkin

, Weinreb

R.N.

, Visual function-specific perimetry for indirect comparison of different ganglion cell populations in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 41: 1783–90.

20.

Bengtsson

, Heijl

Inter-subject variability and normal limits of the SITA Standard, SITA Fast, and the Humphrey Full Threshold computerized perimetry strategies, SITA STATPAC.

Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1999; 77: 125–9.

21.

Heijl

, Lindgren

Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields.

Am J Ophthalmol 1989; 108: 130–5.

22.

Piltz

J.R.

, Starita

R.J.

Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields.

Am J Ophthalmol 1990; 109: 109–11.

23.

Spry

P.G.

, Johnson

C.A.

, McKendrick

A.M.

, Turpin

Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry.

Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001; 42: 1404–10.