Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPhu, J
dc.contributor.authorKalloniatis, M
dc.contributor.authorWang, H
dc.contributor.authorKhuu, SK
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-09T23:39:02Z
dc.date.available2020-12-09T23:39:02Z
dc.date.issued2018-10-01
dc.identifierpii: TVST-18-0862R2
dc.identifier.citationPhu, 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.
dc.identifier.issn2164-2591
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11343/253288
dc.description.abstractPurpose: 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.
dc.languageEnglish
dc.publisherASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
dc.titleDifferences in Static and Kinetic Perimetry Results are Eliminated in Retinal Disease when Psychophysical Procedures are Equated
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.identifier.doi10.1167/tvst.7.5.22
melbourne.affiliation.departmentAnatomy and Neuroscience
melbourne.source.titleTranslational Vision Science and Technology
melbourne.source.volume7
melbourne.source.issue5
dc.rights.licenseCC BY-NC-ND
melbourne.elementsid1354392
melbourne.contributor.authorKalloniatis, Michael
dc.identifier.eissn2164-2591
melbourne.accessrightsOpen Access


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record