Pilot study comparing a new virtual reality-based visual field test to standard perimetry in children

Yeabsira Mesfin; Alan Kong; Benjamin T Backus; Michael Deiner; Yvonne Ou; Julius T Oatts

doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2024.103933

Pilot study comparing a new virtual reality-based visual field test to standard perimetry in children

J AAPOS. 2024 May 8:103933. doi: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2024.103933. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Yeabsira Mesfin¹, Alan Kong¹, Benjamin T Backus², Michael Deiner¹, Yvonne Ou¹, Julius T Oatts³

Affiliations

¹ Department of Ophthalmology, UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California.
² Vivid Vision Inc, San Francisco, California.
³ Department of Ophthalmology, UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California. Electronic address: julius.oatts@ucsf.edu.

PMID: 38729256
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2024.103933

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the feasibility and performance of Vivid Vision Perimetry (VVP), a new virtual reality (VR)-based visual field platform.

Methods: Children 7-18 years of age with visual acuity of 20/80 or better undergoing Humphrey visual field (HVF) testing were recruited to perform VVP, a VR-based test that uses suprathreshold stimuli to test 54 field locations and calculates a fraction seen score. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate correlation between HVF mean sensitivity and VVP mean fraction seen scores. Participants were surveyed regarding their experience.

Results: A total of 37 eyes of 23 participants (average age, 12.9 ± 3.1 years; 48% female) were included. All participants successfully completed VVP testing. Diagnoses included glaucoma (12), glaucoma suspect (7), steroid-induced ocular hypertension (3), and craniopharyngioma (1). Sixteen participants had prior HVF experience, and none had prior VVP experience, although 7 had previously used VR. Of the 23 HVF tests performed, 9 (39%) were unreliable due to fixation losses, false positives, or false negatives. Similarly, 35% of VVP tests were unreliable (as defined by accuracy of blind spot detection). Excluding unreliable HVF tests, the correlation between HVF average mean sensitivity and VVP mean fraction seen score was 0.48 (P = 0.02; 95% CI, 0.09-0.74). When asked about preference for the VVP or HVF examination, all participants favored the VVP, and 70% were "very satisfied" with VVP.

Conclusions: In our cohort of 23 pediatric subjects, VVP proved to be a clinically feasible VR-based visual field testing, which was uniformly preferred over HVF.