Functional visual fields: relationship of visual field areas to self-reported function

Subhi, Hikmat and Latham, Keziah and Myint, Joy and Crossland, Michael (2017) Functional visual fields: relationship of visual field areas to self-reported function. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 37 (4). pp. 399-408. ISSN 1475-1313

[img]
Preview
Text
Accepted Version
Available under the following license: Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (550kB) | Preview
[img] Other (Acceptance)
Other
Restricted to Repository staff only
Available under the following license: Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (120kB)
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/opo.12362

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study is to relate areas of the visual field to functional difficulties to inform the development of a binocular visual field assessment that can reflect the functional consequences of visual field loss. Methods: Fifty-two participants with peripheral visual field loss undertook binocular assessment of visual fields using the 30-2 and 60-4 SITA Fast programs on the Humphrey Field Analyser, and mean thresholds were derived. Binocular visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and near reading performance were also determined. Self-reported overall and mobility function were assessed using the Dutch ICF Activity Inventory. Results: Greater visual field loss (0–60°) was associated with worse self-reported function both overall (R2 = 0.50; p < 0.0001), and for mobility (R2 = 0.64; p < 0.0001). Central (0–30°) and peripheral (30–60°) visual field areas were similarly related to mobility function (R2 = 0.61, p < 0.0001 and R2 = 0.63, p < 0.0001 respectively), although the peripheral (30–60°) visual field was the best predictor of mobility self-reported function in multiple regression analyses. Superior and inferior visual field areas related similarly to mobility function (R2 = 0.56, p < 0.0001 and R2 = 0.67, p < 0.0001 respectively). The inferior field was found to be the best predictor of mobility function in multiple regression analysis. Conclusion: Mean threshold of the binocular visual field to 60° eccentricity is a good predictor of self-reported function overall, and particularly of mobility function. Both the central (0–30°) and peripheral (30–60°) mean threshold are good predictors of self-reported function, but the peripheral (30–0°) field is a slightly better predictor of mobility function, and should not be ignored when considering functional consequences of field loss. The inferior visual field is a slightly stronger predictor of perceived overall and mobility function than the superior field.

Item Type: Journal Article
Keywords: mobility function, self-reported function, visual fields
Faculty: Faculty of Science & Technology
Depositing User: Keziah Latham
Date Deposited: 24 Mar 2017 15:12
Last Modified: 01 Nov 2018 10:15
URI: http://arro.anglia.ac.uk/id/eprint/701591

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item