A case control study examining the feasibility of using eye tracking perimetry to differentiate patients with glaucoma from healthy controls

Abstract

To explore the feasibility of using Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimetry (SVOP) to differentiate glaucomatous and healthy eyes. A prospective case–control study was performed using a convenience sample recruited from a single university glaucoma clinic and a group of healthy controls. SVOP and standard automated perimetry (SAP) was performed with testing order randomised. The reference standard was a diagnosis of glaucoma based a comprehensive ophthalmic examination and abnormality on standard automated perimetry (SAP). The index test was SVOP. 31 patients with glaucoma and 24 healthy subjects were included. Mean SAP mean deviation (MD) in those with glaucoma was − 8.7 ± 7.4 dB, with mean SAP and SVOP sensitivities of 23.3 ± 0.9 dB and 22.1 ± 4.3 dB respectively. Participants with glaucoma were significantly older. On average, SAP sensitivity was 1.2 ± 1.4 dB higher than SVOP (95% limits of agreement = − 1.6 to 4.0 dB). SVOP sensitivity had good ability to differentiate healthy and glaucomatous eyes with a 95% CI for area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84 to 0.96, similar to the performance of SAP sensitivity (95% CI 0.86 to 0.97, P = 0.60). For 80% specificity, SVOP had a 95% CI sensitivity of 75.7% to 94.8% compared to 77.8% to 96.0% for SAP. SVOP took considerably longer to perform (514 ± 54 s compared to 267 ± 76 s for SAP). Eye tracking perimetry may be useful for detection of glaucoma but further studies are needed to evaluate SVOP within its intended sphere of use, using an appropriate design and independent reference standard.

Patients Prefer a Virtual Reality Approach Over a Similarly Performing Screen-Based Approach for Continuous Oculomotor-Based Screening of Glaucomatous and Neuro-Ophthalmological Visual Field Defects

“…These limitations of SAP have been studied in glaucoma (Glen et al, 2014) and neuro-ophthalmic case findings (Szatmáry et al, 2002). Consequently, approaches using eye-movements (Murray et al, 2009;Mazumdar et al, 2014;Leitner et al, 2021b;Mao et al, 2021;Soans et al, 2021;Tatham et al, 2021) including tablet-based (Jones et al, 2019(Jones et al, , 2021 and VR perimetry techniques (Deiner et al, 2020;Leitner and Hawelka, 2021;Leitner et al, 2021a;Narang et al, 2021;Razeghinejad et al, 2021) have been developed.…”

Analysis of research hotspots and trends in pediatric ophthalmopathy based on 10 years of WoSCC literature

“…“Eye tracking” technology, which can automatically monitor the visual dynamics of young children, has been applied in screening for autism spectrum disorder ( 33 , 34 ), detecting glaucoma ( 35 ), quantifying the severity of intermittent esotropia ( 36 ), and assessing vision in infants and children ( 37 ). Ahmed et al developed three AI techniques for early autism diagnosis using eye-tracking data, all achieving over 90% accuracy ( 38 ).…”

“…The keywords "eye tracking" and "choroidal thickness" emerged in 2020-2023, followed by "pediatric ophthalmology," "impact," and "childhood glaucoma" in 2021-2023, indicating the latest research trends in the field. "Eye tracking" technology, which can automatically monitor the visual dynamics of young children, has been applied in screening for autism spectrum disorder (33,34), detecting glaucoma (35), quantifying the severity of intermittent esotropia (36), and assessing vision in infants and children (37). Ahmed et al developed three AI techniques for early autism diagnosis using eye-tracking data, all achieving over 90% accuracy (38).…”