凝视视力测定法的可靠性。

IF 4.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Behavior Research Methods Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-11 DOI:10.3758/s13428-023-02225-y
Nikita Thomas, Jennifer H Acton, Jonathan T Erichsen, Tony Redmond, Matt J Dunn
{"title":"凝视视力测定法的可靠性。","authors":"Nikita Thomas, Jennifer H Acton, Jonathan T Erichsen, Tony Redmond, Matt J Dunn","doi":"10.3758/s13428-023-02225-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Standard automated perimetry, a psychophysical task performed routinely in eyecare clinics, requires observers to maintain fixation for several minutes at a time in order to measure visual field sensitivity. Detection of visual field damage is confounded by eye movements, making the technique unreliable in poorly attentive individuals and those with pathologically unstable fixation, such as nystagmus. Microperimetry, which utilizes 'partial gaze-contingency' (PGC), aims to counteract eye movements but only corrects for gaze position errors prior to each stimulus onset. Here, we present a novel method of visual field examination in which stimulus position is updated during presentation, which we refer to as 'continuous gaze-contingency' (CGC). In the first part of this study, we present three case examples that demonstrate the ability of CGC to measure the edges of the physiological blind spot in infantile nystagmus with greater accuracy than PGC and standard 'no gaze-contingency' (NoGC), as initial proof-of-concept for the utility of the paradigm in measurements of absolute scotomas in these individuals. The second part of this study focused on healthy observers, in which we demonstrate that CGC has the lowest stimulus positional error (gaze-contingent precision: CGC = ± 0.29°, PGC = ± 0.54°, NoGC = ± 0.81°). CGC test-retest variability was shown to be at least as good as both PGC and NoGC. Overall, CGC is supported as a reliable method of visual field examination in healthy observers. Preliminary findings demonstrate the spatially accurate estimation of visual field thresholds related to retinal structure using CGC in individuals with infantile nystagmus.</p>","PeriodicalId":8717,"journal":{"name":"Behavior Research Methods","volume":" ","pages":"4883-4892"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11289009/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability of gaze-contingent perimetry.\",\"authors\":\"Nikita Thomas, Jennifer H Acton, Jonathan T Erichsen, Tony Redmond, Matt J Dunn\",\"doi\":\"10.3758/s13428-023-02225-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Standard automated perimetry, a psychophysical task performed routinely in eyecare clinics, requires observers to maintain fixation for several minutes at a time in order to measure visual field sensitivity. Detection of visual field damage is confounded by eye movements, making the technique unreliable in poorly attentive individuals and those with pathologically unstable fixation, such as nystagmus. Microperimetry, which utilizes 'partial gaze-contingency' (PGC), aims to counteract eye movements but only corrects for gaze position errors prior to each stimulus onset. Here, we present a novel method of visual field examination in which stimulus position is updated during presentation, which we refer to as 'continuous gaze-contingency' (CGC). In the first part of this study, we present three case examples that demonstrate the ability of CGC to measure the edges of the physiological blind spot in infantile nystagmus with greater accuracy than PGC and standard 'no gaze-contingency' (NoGC), as initial proof-of-concept for the utility of the paradigm in measurements of absolute scotomas in these individuals. The second part of this study focused on healthy observers, in which we demonstrate that CGC has the lowest stimulus positional error (gaze-contingent precision: CGC = ± 0.29°, PGC = ± 0.54°, NoGC = ± 0.81°). CGC test-retest variability was shown to be at least as good as both PGC and NoGC. Overall, CGC is supported as a reliable method of visual field examination in healthy observers. Preliminary findings demonstrate the spatially accurate estimation of visual field thresholds related to retinal structure using CGC in individuals with infantile nystagmus.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8717,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavior Research Methods\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"4883-4892\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11289009/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavior Research Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02225-y\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02225-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

标准自动视力测定法是眼科诊所常规开展的一项心理物理任务,要求观察者每次保持定点几分钟,以测量视野敏感度。眼球运动会对视野损伤的检测造成干扰,因此对于注意力不集中的人和有眼球震颤等固定不稳定病理现象的人来说,这项技术并不可靠。利用 "部分注视一致性"(PGC)的微观视力表旨在抵消眼球运动,但只能纠正每次刺激开始前的注视位置误差。在这里,我们提出了一种新颖的视野检查方法,即在刺激出现时更新刺激位置,我们称之为 "连续注视同步"(CGC)。在本研究的第一部分,我们列举了三个案例,证明 CGC 能够测量婴儿眼球震颤的生理性盲点边缘,其准确性高于 PGC 和标准的 "无注视视力一致性"(NoGC),初步证明了该范式在测量这些人的绝对视网膜障时的实用性。本研究的第二部分主要针对健康观察者,我们证明 CGC 的刺激位置误差最小(注视相关精度:CGC = ± 0.29°,PGC = ± 0.54°,NoGC = ± 0.81°)。CGC 的测试-重复变异性至少与 PGC 和 NoGC 一样好。总体而言,CGC 被认为是一种可靠的视野检查方法。初步研究结果表明,在患有小儿眼球震颤的个体中,使用 CGC 可以在空间上准确估计与视网膜结构相关的视野阈值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reliability of gaze-contingent perimetry.

Standard automated perimetry, a psychophysical task performed routinely in eyecare clinics, requires observers to maintain fixation for several minutes at a time in order to measure visual field sensitivity. Detection of visual field damage is confounded by eye movements, making the technique unreliable in poorly attentive individuals and those with pathologically unstable fixation, such as nystagmus. Microperimetry, which utilizes 'partial gaze-contingency' (PGC), aims to counteract eye movements but only corrects for gaze position errors prior to each stimulus onset. Here, we present a novel method of visual field examination in which stimulus position is updated during presentation, which we refer to as 'continuous gaze-contingency' (CGC). In the first part of this study, we present three case examples that demonstrate the ability of CGC to measure the edges of the physiological blind spot in infantile nystagmus with greater accuracy than PGC and standard 'no gaze-contingency' (NoGC), as initial proof-of-concept for the utility of the paradigm in measurements of absolute scotomas in these individuals. The second part of this study focused on healthy observers, in which we demonstrate that CGC has the lowest stimulus positional error (gaze-contingent precision: CGC = ± 0.29°, PGC = ± 0.54°, NoGC = ± 0.81°). CGC test-retest variability was shown to be at least as good as both PGC and NoGC. Overall, CGC is supported as a reliable method of visual field examination in healthy observers. Preliminary findings demonstrate the spatially accurate estimation of visual field thresholds related to retinal structure using CGC in individuals with infantile nystagmus.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
9.30%
发文量
266
期刊介绍: Behavior Research Methods publishes articles concerned with the methods, techniques, and instrumentation of research in experimental psychology. The journal focuses particularly on the use of computer technology in psychological research. An annual special issue is devoted to this field.
期刊最新文献
Dissecting the components of error in analogue report tasks. A template and tutorial for preregistering studies using passive smartphone measures. Scoring story recall for individual differences research: Central details, peripheral details, and automated scoring. A tutorial: Analyzing eye and head movements in virtual reality. Behavioral science labs: How to solve the multi-user problem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1