Fixation stability using central and pericentral fixation targets in patients with age-related macular degeneration

Bellmann, Caren; Feely, Mary; Crossland, Michael D.; Kabanarou, Stamatina Α.; Rubin, Gary S.

doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.06.019

Cited by 106 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, participants often reported being confused about exactly where they were supposed to fixate, and previously it has been shown that such ''hollow'' (pericentral) targets result in quantifiably poorer fixation stability than a simple cross or dot. 47 Thus, it may be that a simple change in fixation target may increase test reliability in some children. In younger children, however, it may be necessary to take more extreme measures to inhibit the foveation saccades that are normally triggered by the sudden appearance of light stimuli in the visual field (Ygge JE, et al IOVS 2004;45:ARVO E-Abstract 2512).…”

Section: Sensitivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility of Macular Integrity Assessment (MAIA) Microperimetry in Children: Sensitivity, Reliability, and Fixation Stability in Healthy Observers

Jones

Yasoubi

Nardini

et al. 2016

Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE.To assess the feasibility of macular integrity assessment (MAIA) microperimetry (MP) in children. Also to establish representative outcome measures (differential light sensitivity, fixation stability, test-retest reliability) for children without visual impairment.METHODS. Thirty-three adults and 33 children (9-12 years) were asked to perform three monocular MAIA examinations within a single session (dominant eye only). RESULTS.Children exhibited poorer test-retest reliability than adults for measures of both mean sensitivity (95% coefficient of repeatability [CoR 95 ] ¼ 2.7 vs. 2.3 dB, P ¼ 0.036) and pointwise sensitivity (CoR 95 ¼ 6.2 vs. 5.7 dB, P < 0.001). Mean sensitivity was lower in children (27.6 vs. 29.5 dB, P < 0.001), and fixation stability was poorer (95% bivariate contour ellipse area [BCEA 95 ] ¼ 4.58 vs. 1.14, P < 0.001). Mean sensitivity was negatively correlated with fixation stability (r ¼ À0.44, P < 0.001). Both children and adults exhibited substantial practice effects, with mean sensitivity improving by 0.5 dB (adults) and 0.9 dB (children) between examinations 1 and 2 (P 0.017). There were no significant differences between examinations 2 and 3 (P ‡ 0.374).CONCLUSIONS. Microperimetry is feasible in 9-to 12-year-old children. However, systematically lower sensitivities mean that the classification boundary for ''healthy'' performance should be lowered in children, pending development of techniques to improve attentiveness/fixation that may reduce or remove this difference. High measurement variability suggests that the results of multiple tests should be averaged when possible. Learning effects are a potential confound, and it is recommended that the results of the first examination be discarded.

show abstract

Section: Sensitivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility of Macular Integrity Assessment (MAIA) Microperimetry in Children: Sensitivity, Reliability, and Fixation Stability in Healthy Observers

Jones

Yasoubi

Nardini

et al. 2016

Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Then, to quantify the spatial coincidence of the point of regard location for each participant, the best-fit bivariate contour ellipse (BCE) of the points was calculated. The BCE area has been previously used to quantify fixation eye movement stability in patients with macular degeneration (Crossland and Rubin, 2002, Bellmann et al, 2004, González et al, 2006 and to quantify viewing areas for subjects as they watch movies (Goldstein et al, 2007, Crabb et al, 2010. In short, the centre of the BCE represents the mean 'point of regard', with the spatial extent of the ellipse being one standard deviation from this centre along two principal axes, theoretically affording 'coverage' of approximately 68% of the 'point of regard' locations.…”

Section: Secondary Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eye Movements in Patients with Glaucoma When Viewing Images of Everyday Scenes

Smith

Crabb

Glen

et al. 2012

Seeing and Perceiving

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link AbstractThis study tests the hypothesis that patients with bilateral glaucoma exhibit different eye movements compared to normally-sighted people when viewing computer displayed photographs of everyday scenes. Thirty glaucomatous patients and 30 age-related controls with normal vision viewed images on a computer monitor whilst eye movements were simultaneously recorded using an eye tracking system. The patients demonstrated a significant reduction in the average number of saccades compared to controls (P=0.02; mean reduction of 7% [95% confidence interval [CI]: 3 to 11%]. There was no difference in average saccade amplitude between groups but there was between-person variability in patients. The average elliptical region scanned by the patients by a bivariate contour ellipse area (BCEA) analysis, was more restricted compared to controls (P=0.004; mean reduction of 23% [95% CI: 11 to 35%]). A novel analysis mapping areas of interest in the images indicated a weak association between severity of functional deficit and a tendency to not view regions typically viewed by the controls. In conclusion, some eye movements in some patients with bilateral glaucomatous defects differ from normal-sighted people of a similar age when viewing images of everyday scenes, providing evidence for a potential new window for looking into the functional consequences of the disease.

show abstract

“…1 This ability to maintain steady fixation is impaired in people with eye disease. [2][3][4][5][6] This deficit in fixation stability is strongly associated with slower reading, 7 and changes in fixation stability are known to be related to changes in reading speed. 6 Two approaches have generally been used to measure fixation stability.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%