advertisement
Abstract #91729 Published in IGR 21-4
Effects of Criterion Bias on Perimetric Sensitivity and Response Variability in Glaucoma
Rubinstein NJ; Turpin A; Denniss J; McKendrick AMTranslational vision science & technology 2021; 10: 18
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to isolate and quantify the effects of observer response criterion on perimetric sensitivity, response variability, and maximum response probability. METHODS: Twelve people with glaucoma were tested at three locations in the visual field (age = 47-77 years, mean deviation = -0.61 to -14.54 dB, test location Humphrey field analyzer [HFA] sensitivities = 1 to 30 dB). Frequency of seeing (FoS) curves were measured using a method of constant stimuli with two response paradigms: a "yes-no" paradigm similar to static automated perimetry and a criterion-free two interval forced choice (2IFC) paradigm. Comparison measures of sensitivity, maximum response probability, and response variability were derived from the fitted FoS curves. RESULTS: Sensitivity differences between the tasks varied widely (range = -11.3 dB to 21.6 dB) and did not correlate with visual field sensitivity nor whether the visual field location was in an area of steep sensitivity gradient within the visual field. Due to the wide variation in differences between the methods, there was no significant difference in mean sensitivity between the 2IFC task relative to the yes-no task, but a trend for higher sensitivity (mean = 1.9 dB, SD = 6.0 dB, = 0.11). Response variability and maximum response probability did not differ between the tasks ( > 0.99 and 0.95, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Perimetric sensitivity estimates are demonstrably altered by observer response criterion but the effect varies widely and unpredictably, even within a single test. Response bias should be considered a factor in perimetric test variability and when comparing sensitivities to nonperimetric data. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: The effect of response criterion on perimetric response variability varies widely and unpredictably, even within a single test.
Full article
Classification:
6.6.3 Special methods (e.g. color, contrast, SWAP etc.) (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.6 Visual field examination and other visual function tests)
6.6.2 Automated (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.6 Visual field examination and other visual function tests)
