Properties of visual field defects around the monocular preferred retinal locus in age-related macular degeneration

Denniss et al.47

Retrospective and Prospective Case-series, United Kingdom N = 185 (AMD) Median = 80, 57–97 PRL location 4–2 Expert test of the MAIA microperimeter PRL tended to be located superiorly and nasally relative to presumed location of anatomic fovea In visual field space, PRLs were displaced to the left and inferiorly

Preferred retinal locus locations in age-related macular degeneration

Erbezci and Ozturk50

Case-series, Turkey

N = 72 (AMD)

M: 54.2% (39)

F: 45.8% (33)

78 ± 8.8 PRL location Optos SLO/optical coherence tomography/microperimetry device to determine the location of the PRL Locations of the PRLs on the retina were: 29.2% (42 eyes) nasal 25% (36 eyes) central 20.8% (30 eyes) temporal 18.1% (26 eyes) superior 1.4% (2 eyes) inferior In visual field space, PRL was located: Left visual field (27.8% right eyes, 40.3% left eyes and 34% both eyes) Right visual field (18.1% right eyes, 13.9% left eyes, 16% both eyes) Inferior visual field (19.4% right eyes, 16.7% left eyes, 18.1% both eyes) Superior visual field (2.8% right eyes, 1.3% both eyes) Central visual field (23.6% right eyes, 26.4% left eyes, 25% both eyes)

Binocular vision in older people with adventitious visual impairment: sometimes one eye is better than two

Faubert and Overbury20

A between-within repeated measures design, Canada N = 49 (AMD) 79.2 ± 9.2

Visual acuity

Spatial contrast sensitivity

Spatial sine wave gratings generated using Nicolet Optronics 2000 contrast measurement system. Six spatial frequencies were tested: 0.17, 0.33, 1.0, 2.01, 3.81, and 7.63 cycles per degree of visual angle Best monocular acuity was equal to binocular acuity 55% (27) showed summation/suppression (binocular contrast sensitivity function greater or equal to best monocular contrast sensitivity); 45% (22) showed binocular inhibition For binocular inhibition group, there was a binocular disadvantage for the medium to lower spatial frequencies (2nd, 3rd and 4th spatial frequencies)

Reading with central scotomas: is there a binocular gain?

Kabanarou and Rubin21

Case series, United Kingdom N = 22 (bilateral late-stage AMD) 81.0 ± 5.6

Distance acuity

Contrast sensitivity

Reading acuity

Reading speed

Distance visual acuity measured with ETDRS charts

Contrast sensitivity was measured using the Pelli-Robson letter sensitivity chart

Reading acuity measured using MNREAD acuity charts

Reading time calculated in milliseconds for each sentence read orally using external computer software

No statistically significant difference between monocular and binocular visual acuity There was a slight benefit to binocular viewing for contrast sensitivity 18.1% (4) patients showed binocular summation for contrast sensitivity, and 9% (4) showed binocular inhibition There was no statistically significant difference between binocular and monocular reading acuity and MRS 63.6% (14) patients showed binocular summation for MRS and 13.6% (3) demonstrated binocular inhibition 18.1% (4) of patients showed binocular reading acuity summation, while 4.5% (1) showed binocular reading acuity inhibition

Gaze changes with binocular versus monocular viewing in age-related macular degeneration

Kabanarou et al.55

Cross-sectional, United Kingdom N = 29 (bilateral AMD) 79.8 ± 5.6 PRL location SMI EyeLink I eye tracker was used to record monocular and binocular eye movements 3 patients demonstrated a significant shift distance in both eyes, whereas 17 patients showed a significant shift distance only in the worse eye The shift in gaze position of the worse eye was related to the distance between the 2 monocular PRLs, but there was no such association for the better eye

Characteristics of the preferred retinal loci of better and worse seeing eyes of patients with a central scotoma

Kisilevsky et al.48

Retrospective consecutive case series, Canada N = 103 (AMD or Stargardt disease) PRL location Fixation examination was conducted using MP−1 microperimeter 31% (27) of PRLs in the better eye occurred in the inferior visual field segment; 31% (27) occurred in the left visual field; 14.9% (13) occurred in the central visual field segment; 14.9% (13) occurred in the superior visual field segment; and 8% (7) occurred in the right visual field segment PRL distribution was not significantly different for the worse eye

Contrast sensitivity and binocular reading speed best correlating with near distance vision-related quality of life in bilateral nAMD

Rossouw et al.38

Prospective cross-sectional pilot study

N = 54 (bilateral neovascular AMD)

M: 46.3% (25)

F: 53.7% (29)

79.6 ± 7.88 MRS

Standardised high contrast ‘sentence optotypes’ Radner reading charts

were used to test maximum reading speed

No statistically significant difference between binocular MRS and monocular MRS with the better eye (p = 0.73)

Changes in fixation stability with time during binocular and monocular viewing in maculopathy

Samet et al.58

Case-control, Canada

N = 17 (AMD)

M: 52.9% (9)

F: 47.1% (8)

78.6 ± 8.1 Fixation stability EyeLink 1000 eye-tracker was used to measure fixation. Fixation stability was recorded binocularly and monocularly with each eye for duration of 15 seconds with fellow eye covered and analysed over 3 second consecutive intervals For binocular viewing and monocular viewing with the better eye, fixation stability of fixed-duration intervals did not change; but improved linearly with consecutive fixed duration intervals when viewing with the worse eye

Reading with central vision loss: binocular summation and inhibition

Silvestri et al.22

Case series, Italy

N = 71 (AMD or Stargardt disease)

M: 49.3% (35)

F: 50.7% (36)

63 ± 21

Visual acuity

Reading acuity

Critical print size

Contrast sensitivity

MRS

Stereoacuity

Fixation stability

PRL location

Visual acuity measured using ETDRS

Reading acuity measured with Italian version of MNREAD acuity charts

Contrast sensitivity measured using Pelli-Robson chart

Stereoacuity measured using Stereo Fly Test

Monocular fixation stability and PRL obtained using MP−1 Microperimeter

Binocular visual acuity did not differ from monocular visual acuity (p = 0.30) Contrast sensitivity for binocular viewing was statistically greater than monocular viewing (p = 0.02) MRS, critical print size and reading acuity did not differ significantly between monocular and binocular viewing conditions (smallest p = 0.4) 41% (29) of the sample showed binocular inhibition of MRS, 17% (12) of the sample had binocular equality and 42% (30) showed binocular summation Patients with binocular inhibition for MRS had significantly lower binocular MRS than the summation or equality group There was no difference in critical print size between binocular and monocular viewing conditions Residual stereoacuity found in 38% of cases in binocular inhibition group for MRS; 50% of cases in equality group and 73% of individuals in summation group Fixation stability was significantly better in better eye than worse eye. PRL distance from former fovea was significantly larger for worse eye than better eye in inhibition group (p = 0.001), but not in equality or summation group 92% of patients in equality group and 83% of patients in summation group had PRLs in corresponding locations in two eyes. 68% of patients in inhibition group had PRLs in non-corresponding locations PRL in better eye was inferior or superior to scotoma in equality group (75% of cases) and summation group (67% of cases); but in worse eye more patients had PRL temporal or nasal to scotoma (38%) Assuming that the PRL of the better eye stayed in the same location during monocular and binocular viewing, and PRL of worse eye moved into retinal correspondence with that of better eye in binocular viewing, in 52% (15) of cases of binocular inhibition, PRL in worse eye would fall on scotoma during binocular viewing

Identification of fixation location with retinal photography in macular degeneration

Somani and Markowitz46

Prospective, observational case series, Canada

N = 21 (AMD)

M: 33.3% (7)

F: 66.7% (14)

78, 53–86 PRL location Retinal photography was performed with Zeiss fundus camera In 17 (71%) of the 24 eyes with successful fixation location, preferred PRL was superior to macular scar; in 4 eyes (17%) it was to the left of the macular scar; in 2 eyes (8%) it was to the right of the macular scar; and in 1 eye (4%) it was inferior to the macular scar

Binocular interactions in patients with age-related macular degeneration: acuity summation and rivalry

Tarita-Nistor et al.32

Case control, Canada N = 17 (AMD) 81.6 ± 6.8

Visual acuity

Visual acuity measured with multiple tumbling E acuity test at three levels of contrast (86%, 32%, and 12%) No difference between binocular and monocular visual acuity at any contrast level 39% of patients showed binocular inhibition for visual acuity, and approximately 50% demonstrated binocular summation

Fixation stability during binocular viewing in patients with age-related macular degeneration

Tarita-Nistor et al.33

Case-series, Canada

N = 20 (AMD)

M: 50% (10)

F: 50% (10)

79.4 ± 8.3

Visual acuity

Fixation stability

Visual acuities were measured using the ETDRS chart

Monocular fixation stability was recorded with the MP−1 microperimeter

Binocular fixation stability was recorded with the EyeLink 1000 eye tracker

Monocular visual acuity of the better eye was not significantly different from binocular acuity When viewing binocularly, fixation stability of the better eye did not change between monocular and binocular viewing Fixation stability of the worse eye was 84 to 100% better in binocular than monocular viewing

Fixation patterns in maculopathy: from binocular to monocular viewing

Tarita-Nistor et al.57

Case-control, Canada

N = 12 (AMD)

M: 33.3% (4)

F: 66.7% (8)

79.25 ± 7.31 Fixation stability Fixation stability was recorded using the EyeLink 1000 eye tracker For the better eye, there was no difference in shift between better eye monocular viewing and binocular viewing For the worse eye, there was good coordination during binocular viewing, but greater shift with worse eye monocular viewing

Maximum reading speed and binocular summation in patients with central vision loss

Tarita-Nistor et al.31

Prospective observational case series

N = 20 (AMD, cone dystrophy, myopic macular dystrophy)

M: 40% (8)

F: 60% (12)

77 ± 12.9

Visual Acuity

Fixation stability

PRL location

Visual acuity was measured using ETDRS chart

Fixation stability and PRL location were recorded using MP−1 microperimeter

Binocular acuity was equal to monocular acuity of better eye. Acuity of worse eye was much poorer 6 patients in binocular summation group, 5 in inhibition group, and 9 in equality group Binocular MRS was lower in the inhibition group than the summation and equality groups

Identifying absolute preferred retinal locations during binocular viewing

Tarita-Nistor et al.53

Case control, Canada

N = 9 (bilateral central vision loss)

M: 66.7% (6)

F: 33.3% (3)

73 ± 16 PRL location

The MP−1 microperimeter was used to identify monocular PRL location

The Vision 2020-RB eye-tracker was used to measure binocular PRLs

During binocular viewing, the PRLs were in corresponding locations, but this was not always the case in monocular viewing For patients with high interocular acuity differences, the monocular PRL of the worse eye would move into retinal correspondence with the PRL of the better eye during binocular viewing The PRL of the worse eye sometimes fell on the scotoma, while the PRL location of the better eye remained unchanged

Fixation stability and viewing distance in patients with AMD

Tarita-Nistor et al.30

Case-control, Canada

N = 30 (bilateral AMD)

M: 40% (12)

F: 60% (18)

78 ± 8

Visual acuity

Fixation stability

Visual acuity measured using ETDRS chart

Effect of viewing distance on fixation stability (40cm, 1m, 6m). Fixation stability was measured using MP−1 Microperimeter

There was no difference in visual acuity between better eye viewing and binocular viewing No effect of viewing distance on fixation stability of better or worse eye during binocular viewing (smallest p = 0.1) No effect of viewing distance on fixation stability of better eye during monocular viewing (p = 0.3); fixation stability was slightly worse at 40cm for worse eye viewing, but this did not reach significance (p = 0.06)

Effect of disease progression on the PRL location in patients with bilateral central vision loss

Tarita-Nistor et al.54

Case series, Canada

N = 51 (AMD or Stargardt disease)

M: 51% (26)

F: 49% (25)

77 ± 11 at first visit PRL location MP−1 microperimeter was used to measure monocular PRL location For the better eye, PRL distance from the former fovea increased significantly between visits (p = 0.03) while maintaining a constant polar angle, whereas for the worse eye, this distance did not change significantly A decrease in PRL distance from former fovea was observed in 39% (20) of cases for the worse eye, and 24% (12) of cases for the better eye The PRL of the worse eye progressed to be in retinal correspondence with the new PRL of the better eye during visit 2, and would often land on the scotoma

Binocular contrast inhibition in subjects with age-related macular degeneration

Valberg and Fosse17

Case control, Norway

N = 13 (AMD)

M: 38.5% (5)

F: 61.5% (8)

75 ± 6 Contrast sensitivity Spatial contrast sensitivity measured using horizontal sinusoidal gratings displayed on a calibrated (g-corrected) 30-bit videographic system (VIGRA) of 40 cd/m2 mean luminance 8 out of 13 AMD subjects showed binocular inhibition for narrow or extended frequency band Average of integrated binocular contrast sensitivity was similar to the average for better eye

Depth perception and grasp in central field loss

Verghese et al.44

Case control, United States N = 14 (maculopathy) 77.2 ± 10.5 Stereoacuity

Stereoacuity was measured using the RanDot stereo test

Peg-placement task was used as a task requiring depth perception

There was a significant benefit for binocular viewing for peg-placement time, errors and peg pick-up time For patients with measurable stereopsis, there was a binocular advantage for peg placement time and errors, but this was not statistically significant Among patients with measurable stereopsis, binocular advantage of peg-placement time was significantly correlated with stereoacuity

The oculomotor reference in humans with bilateral macular disease

White and Bedell49

Case-control, United States N = 21 (AMD or Stargardt disease) PRL location Image of the fixation target and 25° of the posterior pole of patient's preferred eye was videorecorded through a Zeiss fundus camera In 85.7% (18) of patients, the preferred fixation area was in the superior hemiretina In 2/3 of remaining patients, the preferred fixation area was not far below the horizontal meridian