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

• Published in: Ophthalmic & physiological optics 2017-07, Vol.37 (4), p.399-408
• Main Authors: Subhi, Hikmat, Latham, Keziah, Myint, Joy, Crossland, Michael D.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acuity; Aged; Automobile driving; Binocular vision; Contrast Sensitivity; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Mobility; mobility function; Multiple regression analysis; Owls; Quality of Life; Reading; Self Report; self‐reported function; Sensory Thresholds - physiology; Surveys and Questionnaires; Vision, Binocular - physiology; Vision, Low - diagnosis; Vision, Low - physiopathology; Visual Acuity; Visual field; Visual Field Tests; visual fields; Visual Fields - physiology; Visual perception; Visual thresholds
• ISSN: 0275-5408; 1475-1313
• DOI: 10.1111/opo.12362

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.