Visual Field Testing with Head-Mounted Perimeter ‘imo’

Matsumoto, Chota; Yamao, Sayaka; Nomoto, Hiroki; Takada, Sonoko; Okuyama, Satoshi; Kimura, Shigeo; Yamanaka, Kenzo; Aihara, Makoto; Shimomura, Yoshikazu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0161974

Cited by 70 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even more important would be to improve the overall quality and experience of field testing. The recent development of the IMO instrument by Matsumoto et al is a potential step in that direction [30]. This device, whose basic test paradigm is similar to present techniques, is a head-mounted display that eliminates the physical conformational issues that confront many older subjects.…”

Section: Doing the Right Spacing Of Visual Field Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

21st century glaucoma care

Quigley

2018

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Glaucoma care has evolved dramatically over the past generation, with changes that have incorporated new technology and improved understanding of the disease process. A major need is to construct a useful definition of glaucomatous optic neuropathy that can be used to compare data across clinical research studies. The treatment of glaucoma should now be based on achievement of a goal target for intraocular pressure, unique to each patient. Adherence with eye drop treatment is far from ideal and can be improved using reminder systems. Sustained delivery of glaucoma medication is on the horizon. New surgical approaches to glaucoma are being actively studied but have not as yet found their place in its care, with rigorous testing against present treatments needed.

show abstract

Section: Doing the Right Spacing Of Visual Field Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

21st century glaucoma care

Quigley

2018

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, imo, a head-mounted perimeter (CREWT, Tokyo Japan) employs the pupil-tracking method. [ 9 ]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variability in monocular and binocular fixation during standard automated perimetry

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to use standard automated perimetry to compare fixation variability among the dominant eye fixation, non-dominant eye fixation, and binocular fixation conditions. Thirty-five eyes of 35 healthy young participants underwent standard automated perimetry (Humphrey 24–2 SITA-Standard) in dominant eye fixation, non-dominant eye fixation, and binocular fixation conditions. Fixation variability during foveal threshold and visual field measurement, which was recorded using a wearable eye-tracking glass and calculated using the bivariate contour ellipse area (deg2), was compared among the three fixation conditions. Further, the association of bivariate contour ellipse area with ocular position and fusional amplitude during binocular fixation was analysed. There were no significant differences in bivariate contour ellipse area during foveal threshold measurement among the dominant eye fixation (1.75 deg2), non-dominant eye fixation (1.45 deg2), and binocular fixation (1.62 deg2) conditions. In contrast, the bivariate contour ellipse area during visual field measurement in binocular fixation (2.85 deg2) was significantly lower than the bivariate contour ellipse area in dominant eye fixation (4.62 deg2; p = 0.0227) and non-dominant eye fixation (5.24 deg2; p = 0.0006) conditions. There was no significant difference in bivariate contour ellipse area during visual field measurement between dominant eye fixation and non-dominant eye fixation conditions. There was no significant correlation between bivariate contour ellipse area and either ocular position or fusional amplitude during both foveal threshold and visual field measurements. Thus, fixation variability might be improved in binocular fixation conditions during a long-duration test, such as visual field measurement.

show abstract

“…A new portable head-mounted perimeter, named ‘imo’ (CREWT Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan) has recently been developed. 11 This device enables VF testing with no need for a dark room and using test conditions compatible with those for SAP. 12 A gyroscope is integrated, and the head tilt can be monitored.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of central visual sensitivity between monocular and binocular testing in advanced glaucoma patients using imo perimetry

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/AimThis study aimed to compare central visual sensitivity under monocular and binocular conditions in patients with glaucoma using the new imo static perimetry.MethodsFifty-one consecutive eyes of 51 patients with open-angle glaucoma who were affected with at least one significant point in the central 10° were examined in this cross-sectional study. Monocular and binocular random single-eye tests were performed using the imo perimeter and the Humphrey field analyser (HFA) 24-2 and 10-2 tests. The eyes were assigned to ‘better’ and ‘worse’ categories based on the visual acuity and central visual thresholding. Central visual sensitivity results obtained by monocular, binocular random single-eye tests and binocular simultaneous both eye test were compared.ResultsThe average mean deviation with the HFA 24-2 was −5.5 (–1.5, –14.6) dB (median, (IQR)) in the better eyes and −18.0 (–12.9, –23.8) dB in the worse eyes. The mean sensitivity in the central 4 points of the visual field (VF) of the worse eyes was lower when measured under the binocular eye condition than under the monocular condition. Conversely, this value of the better eyes was greater when measured under the binocular eye condition than under the monocular condition.ConclusionsThe central sensitivity of the better eyes was better and that of the worse eyes poorer with binocular testing than with monocular testing in patients with glaucoma. Although monocular VF testing is still the most straightforward means to monocularly monitor glaucoma at clinical settings, binocular testing, such as provided with imo perimetry, may be a useful clinical tool to predict the effect of VF impairments on a patient’s quality of visual life.

show abstract

Visual Field Testing with Head-Mounted Perimeter ‘imo’

Cited by 70 publications

References 10 publications

21st century glaucoma care

21st century glaucoma care

Variability in monocular and binocular fixation during standard automated perimetry

Comparison of central visual sensitivity between monocular and binocular testing in advanced glaucoma patients using imo perimetry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About