The Effect of Myopic Optical Defocus on the Humphrey Matrix 30-2 Test

Jae Hui Kim; Changwon Kee

doi:10.3341/jkos.2008.49.1.119

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.49(1) > 1008033

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim and Kee: The Effect of Myopic Optical Defocus on the Humphrey Matrix 30-2 Test

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2008;49(1):119-124.

Published online: 3 August 2008

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2008.49.1.119

The Effect of Myopic Optical Defocus on the Humphrey Matrix 30-2 Test

Jae Hui Kim, M.D., Changwon Kee, M.D.

Department of Ophthalmology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Changwon Kee, M.D. Department of Ophthalmology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine #50 Ilwon-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 130-710, Korea Tel: 82-2-3410-3564, Fax: 82-3410-0074, E-mail: cwkee@smc.samsung.co.kr

Received 13 February 2007 Accepted 14 August 2007

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the effect of myopic optical defocus on Humphrey Matrix 30-2 test.

Methods

Twenty-nine myopic eyes of 29 patients underwent 2 consecutive tests with the Humphrey Matrix 30-2 threshold program. The first and second tests were performed with and without correction for myopia. Differences between the mean deviation (Δ MD) and the pattern standard deviation (Δ PSD) were calculated, and a correlation between the spherical equivalent (SE) and Δ MD and Δ PSD was investigated. The influence of optical defocus according to the visual field (central and peripheral) and the severity of glaucomatous visual field damage (area with total deviation plot of ‘P<0.1%’ or ‘P<0.5%’ and the other area) were also evaluated.

Results

The correlation between SE and Δ MD was significant (p=0.02, r=0.62). However, the correlation between SE and Δ PSD was not significant (p=0.81, r=0.15). The differences in the mean total deviation printout value of the central and peripheral visual field groups between the two tests were 5.85±4.26dB and 5.66±3.56dB, respectively (P=0.86). The differences in the mean total deviation printout value of severely damaged and less damaged areas between the two tests were 3.16±3.39dB and 6.62±4.62dB, respectively (P<0.01).

Conclusions

Myopic optical defocus has a significant effect on the results of the Humphrey Matrix 30-2 test. There is no difference in the effect of myopia between the central and peripheral visual fields, and the effect is decreased in severely damaged visual fields.

Keywords: FDT, Humphrey, Matrix, Myopia

References

1. Quigley HA, Dunkelberger GR, Green WR. Retinal ganglion cell atrophy correlated with automated perimetry in human eyes with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1989; 107:453–64.

2. Kerrigan-Baumrind LA, Quigley HA, Pease ME, et al. Number of ganglion cells in glaucoma eyes compared with threshold visual field tests in the same persons. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000; 41:741–8.

3. Johnson CA, Adams AJ, Casson EJ, et al. Blue-on-yellow perimetry can predict the development of glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993; 111:645–50.

4. Johnson ca, Adams AJ, Casson EJ, Brandt JD. Progression of early glaucomatous visual field loss as detected by blue-on-yellow and standard white-on-white automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993; 111:651–6.

5. Wall M, Ketoff KM. Random dot motion perimetry in patients with glaucoma and in normal subjects. Am J Ophthalmol. 1995; 120:587–96.

6. Bosworth CF, Sample SA, Gupta N, et al. Motion automated perimetry identifies early glaucomatous field defects. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998; 116:1153–8.

7. Glovinsky Y, Quigley HA, Pease ME. Foveal ganglion cell loss in size dependent on experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1991; 32:484–91.

8. Quigley HA, Dunkelberger GR, Green WR. Chronic human glaucoma causing selectively greater loss of large optic nerve fibers. Ophthalmology. 1988; 95:357–63.

9. Kelly DH. Frequency doubling in visual responses. J Opt Soc Am. 1966; 56:1628–33.

10. Johnson CA, Samuels SJ. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997; 38:413–25.

11. Quigley HA. Identification of glaucoma-related visual field abnormality with the screening protocol of frequency doubling technology. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998; 125:819–29.

12. Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Parisi L. Frequency doubling technology perimetry with the Humphrey Matrix 30-2 test. J Glaucoma. 2006; 15:77–83.

13. Ko BS, Kim CY, Hong YJ. Correlation between optic disc tomography and frequency doubling technology in glaucoma suspect. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2003; 44:2040–6.

14. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Frequency-doubling technology perimetry and optical defocus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003; 44:4147–52.

15. Artes PH, Nicolela MT, McCormick TA, et al. Effects of blur and repeated testing on sensitivity estimates with frequency doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003; 44:646–52.

16. Ito A, Kawabata H, Fujimoto N, Adachi-Usami E. Effect of myopia on frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001; 42:1107–10.

17. Heeg GP, Stoutenbeek R, Jansonius NM. Strategies for improving the diagnostic specificity of the frequency doubling perimeter. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2005; 83:53–6.

18. Heeg GP, Ponsioen TL, Jansonius NM. Learning effect, normal range, and test-retest variability of Frequency Doubling Perimetry as a function of age, perimetric experience, and the presence or absence of glaucoma. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2003; 23:535–40.

19. Joson PJ, Kamantigue ME, Chen PP. Learning effects among perimetric novices in frequency doubling technology perimetry. Ophthalmology. 2002; 109:757–60.

20. Iester M, Capris P, Pandolfo A, et al. Learning effect, short-term fluctuation, and long-term fluctuation in frequency doubling technique. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000; 130:160–4.

21. Brush MB, Chen PP. Test-retest variability in glaucoma patients tested with C-20-1 screening-mode frequency doubling technology perimetry. J Glaucoma. 2004; 13:273–7.

22. Adams CW, Bullimore MA, Wall M, et al. Normal aging effects for frequency doubling technology perimetry. Optom Vis Sci. 1999; 76:582–7.

23. Legge GE, Mullen KT, Woo GC, Campbell FW. Tolerance to visual defocus. J Opt Soc Am A. 1987; 4:851–63.

24. Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Parisi L. Frequency doubling technology perimetry with the Humphrey Matrix 30-2 test. J Glaucoma. 2006; 15:77–83.

25. Kogure S, Toda Y, Crabb D, et al. Agreement between frequency doubling perimetry and static perimetry in eyes with high tension glaucoma and normal tension glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003; 87:604–8.

26. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA, Fingeret M, et al. Characteristics of the normative database for the Humphrey matrix perimeter. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005; 46:1540–8.

27. Haymes SA, Hutchison DM, McCormick TA, et al. Glaucomatous visual field progression with frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in a longitudinal prospective study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005; 46:547–54.

Figure 1.

Correlations between SE and Δ MD (A: simple linear regression, p=0.02, r=0.62), SE and Δ PSD (B: simple linear regression, p=0.93, r=0.15) (SE: spherical equivalent, Δ MD: differences of mean deviation between the first and the second tests;Δ PSD: differences of pattern standard deviation between the first and the second tests.).

Table 1.

Difference of MD and PSD between the first (with correction) and the second (without correction) tests (MD=mean deviation; PSD=pattern standard deviation)

	The first test (with correction)	The second test (without correction)	P-value
MD (dB)	-3.16±3.62^*	-8.27±4.74^*	<0.01^†
PSD (dB)	4.53±1.98^*	4.49±1.64^*	0.93^†

^* Mean±standard deviation.

^† Paired T-test.

Table 2.

Changes of glaucoma hemifield test results between the first (with correction) and the second (without correction) tests

Case	SE (D)	The first test (with correction)	The second test (without correction)
1	-8.00	WNL	ONL
2	-5.50	WNL	Borderline
3	-4.25	WNL	Borderline
4	-3.88	Borderline	ONL
5	-3.50	WNL	Borderline
6	-3.00	WNL	ONL
7	-2.88	WNL	Borderline

D=diopter; WNL=within normal limit; ONL=outside normal limit; SE=spherical equivalent.

Table 3.

Differences of mean pattern standard printout values between central (within 15 degree from the fixation point) and peripheral visual field (A) and between severely damaged and less damaged visual field (B)

	Visual field (VF)	Value of total deviation printout (dB, Mean±SD)	P-value
A	Central VF	5.85±4.26	0.86^*
	Peripheral VF	5.66±3.56	0.86^*
B	Severely damaged	3.16±3.39	<0.01^*
	VF Less damaged VF	6.62±4.52	<0.01^*

^* Paired T-test.

TOOLS

Similar articles