Differences in Static and Kinetic Perimetry Results are Eliminated in Retinal Disease when Psychophysical Procedures are Equated
AuthorPhu, J; Kalloniatis, M; Wang, H; Khuu, SK
Source TitleTranslational Vision Science and Technology
PublisherASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
University of Melbourne Author/sKalloniatis, Michael
AffiliationAnatomy and Neuroscience
Document TypeJournal Article
CitationsPhu, J., Kalloniatis, M., Wang, H. & Khuu, S. K. (2018). Differences in Static and Kinetic Perimetry Results are Eliminated in Retinal Disease when Psychophysical Procedures are Equated. TRANSLATIONAL VISION SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 7 (5), https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.7.5.22.
Access StatusOpen Access
Purpose: We tested the hypothesis that clinical statokinetic dissociation (SKD, defined as the difference in sensitivity to static and kinetic stimuli) at the scotoma border in retinal disease is due to individual criterion bias and that SKD can be eliminated by equating the psychophysical procedures for testing static and kinetic stimulus detection. Methods: Six subjects with glaucoma and six with retinitis pigmentosa (RP) were tested. Clinical procedures (standard automated perimetry [SAP] and manual kinetic perimetry [MKP]) were used to determine clinical SKD and the region of interest for laboratory-based testing. Two-way Method of Limits (MoL) was used to establish the isocontrast region at the scotoma border in glaucoma and RP subjects. Method of Constant Stimuli (MoCS) and a two-interval forced choice (2IFC) procedure then were used to present static or kinetic (inward or outward) stimuli at different eccentricities within the isocontrast region. The results were fitted with psychometric functions to determine threshold eccentricities. Results: Clinical SKD was found in glaucoma and RP subjects, with variable magnitude among subjects, but significantly exceeding expected typical measurement variability. The resultant psychometric functions when using MoCS and 2IFC showed equal sensitivity to static and kinetic targets, thus eliminating SKD. Conclusions: Clinical SKD found using clinical techniques is due to methodologic differences and criterion bias, and is eliminated by using an equated and more objective psychophysical task, similar to normal subjects. Translational relevance: Eliminating SKD using a psychophysical approach minimizing criterion bias suggests that it is not useful to distinguish between normal and diseased fields.
- Click on "Export Reference in RIS Format" and choose "open with... Endnote".
- Click on "Export Reference in RIS Format". Login to Refworks, go to References => Import References