PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and performance of Vivid Vision Perimetry (VVP), a new virtual reality (VR)-based visual field platform.
METHODS: Children 7-18 years of age with visual acuity of 20/80 or better undergoing Humphrey visual field (HVF) testing were recruited to perform VVP, a VR-based test that uses suprathreshold stimuli to test 54 field locations and calculates a fraction seen score. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate correlation between HVF mean sensitivity and VVP mean fraction seen scores. Participants were surveyed regarding their experience.
RESULTS: A total of 37 eyes of 23 participants (average age, 12.9 ± 3.1 years; 48% female) were included. All participants successfully completed VVP testing. Diagnoses included glaucoma (12), glaucoma suspect (7), steroid-induced ocular hypertension (3), and craniopharyngioma (1). Sixteen participants had prior HVF experience, and none had prior VVP experience, although 7 had previously used VR. Of the 23 HVF tests performed, 9 (39%) were unreliable due to fixation losses, false positives, or false negatives. Similarly, 35% of VVP tests were unreliable (as defined by accuracy of blind spot detection). Excluding unreliable HVF tests, the correlation between HVF average mean sensitivity and VVP mean fraction seen score was 0.48 (P = 0.02; 95% CI, 0.09-0.74). When asked about preference for the VVP or HVF examination, all participants favored the VVP, and 70% were \"very satisfied\" with VVP.
CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort of 23 pediatric subjects, VVP proved to be a clinically feasible VR-based visual field testing, which was uniformly preferred over HVF.
METHODS: Children 7-18 years of age with visual acuity of 20/80 or better undergoing Humphrey visual field (HVF) testing were recruited to perform VVP, a VR-based test that uses suprathreshold stimuli to test 54 field locations and calculates a fraction seen score. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate correlation between HVF mean sensitivity and VVP mean fraction seen scores. Participants were surveyed regarding their experience.
RESULTS: A total of 37 eyes of 23 participants (average age, 12.9 ± 3.1 years; 48% female) were included. All participants successfully completed VVP testing. Diagnoses included glaucoma (12), glaucoma suspect (7), steroid-induced ocular hypertension (3), and craniopharyngioma (1). Sixteen participants had prior HVF experience, and none had prior VVP experience, although 7 had previously used VR. Of the 23 HVF tests performed, 9 (39%) were unreliable due to fixation losses, false positives, or false negatives. Similarly, 35% of VVP tests were unreliable (as defined by accuracy of blind spot detection). Excluding unreliable HVF tests, the correlation between HVF average mean sensitivity and VVP mean fraction seen score was 0.48 (P = 0.02; 95% CI, 0.09-0.74). When asked about preference for the VVP or HVF examination, all participants favored the VVP, and 70% were \"very satisfied\" with VVP.
CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort of 23 pediatric subjects, VVP proved to be a clinically feasible VR-based visual field testing, which was uniformly preferred over HVF.
摘要：
目的：为了评估生动视觉视野仪（VVP）的可行性和性能，一种新的基于虚拟现实(VR)的视野平台。
方法：招募接受汉弗莱视野（HVF）测试的7-18岁视力为20/80或更高的儿童进行VVP，基于VR的测试，使用超阈值刺激来测试54个视野位置并计算分数。计算Pearson相关系数以评估HVF平均灵敏度和VVP平均分数之间的相关性。对参与者的经历进行了调查。
结果：23名参与者的37只眼睛（平均年龄，12.9±3.1岁；48%为女性）。所有参与者均成功完成VVP测试。诊断包括青光眼（12），青光眼可疑（7），类固醇诱导的高眼压(3)，和颅咽管瘤（1）。16名参与者之前有HVF经验，之前都没有VVP经验,尽管7以前曾使用过VR。在进行的23次HVF测试中，9（39%）由于固定损失而不可靠，假阳性,或者假阴性。同样，35%的VVP测试是不可靠的(如通过准确的盲点检测所定义的)。排除不可靠的HVF测试，HVF平均灵敏度和VVP平均分数之间的相关性为0.48(P=0.02;95%CI,0.09-0.74).当被问及对VVP或HVF检查的偏好时，所有参与者都赞成VVP，70%的人对VVP“非常满意”。
结论：在我们23名儿科受试者的队列中，VVP被证明是临床上可行的基于VR的视野测试，与HVF相比，这是一致首选的。
方法：招募接受汉弗莱视野（HVF）测试的7-18岁视力为20/80或更高的儿童进行VVP，基于VR的测试，使用超阈值刺激来测试54个视野位置并计算分数。计算Pearson相关系数以评估HVF平均灵敏度和VVP平均分数之间的相关性。对参与者的经历进行了调查。
结果：23名参与者的37只眼睛（平均年龄，12.9±3.1岁；48%为女性）。所有参与者均成功完成VVP测试。诊断包括青光眼（12），青光眼可疑（7），类固醇诱导的高眼压(3)，和颅咽管瘤（1）。16名参与者之前有HVF经验，之前都没有VVP经验,尽管7以前曾使用过VR。在进行的23次HVF测试中，9（39%）由于固定损失而不可靠，假阳性,或者假阴性。同样，35%的VVP测试是不可靠的(如通过准确的盲点检测所定义的)。排除不可靠的HVF测试，HVF平均灵敏度和VVP平均分数之间的相关性为0.48(P=0.02;95%CI,0.09-0.74).当被问及对VVP或HVF检查的偏好时，所有参与者都赞成VVP，70%的人对VVP“非常满意”。
结论：在我们23名儿科受试者的队列中，VVP被证明是临床上可行的基于VR的视野测试，与HVF相比，这是一致首选的。
