August 2023
By: Catherine Johnson, BA, Ahmed Sayed, PhD, John McSoley, OD, Mary Durbin, PhD, Rashed Kashem, BS, Alexandra Nicklin, OD, Valeria Lopez, BS, Georgeana Mijares, BS, Michael Chen, OD, Abdulla Shaheen, MD, Steven Segarra, BS,∥ Nadine Rady, MD, Christian Andres Duque, BA, Collins Opoku-Baah, PhD, and Mohamed Abou Shousha, MD, PhD
Précis: This study of inter-test comparability of a novel visual field application installed on an augmented-reality portable headset and
Humphrey field analyzer Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm (SITA) Standard visual field test demonstrates the excellent
correlation of mean deviation (MD) and mean sensitivity (MS).
Purpose: To determine the correlation between visual field testing with novel software on a wearable headset versus standard automated perimetry.
Patients and Methods: Patients with and without visual field defects attributable to glaucoma had visual field testing in one eye of each patient with 2 methods: re:Imagine Strategy (Heru, Inc.) and the Humphrey field analyzer (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc.) SITA Standard 24-2 program. Main outcome measures included MS and MD, which were evaluated by linear regression, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland Altman analysis for assessment of the mean difference and limits of agreement.
Results: Measurements from 89 eyes of 89 patients (18 normal and 71 glaucomas) were compared with both instruments. Linear regression analysis demonstrated an excellent Pearson correlation coefficient of r = 0.94 for MS and r = 0.95 for MD. ICC analysis demonstrated high levels of concordance (ICC = 0.95, P < 0.001 for MS and ICC = 0.94, P < 0.001 for MD). Bland-Altman analysis determined a small mean difference between the two devices (Heru minus
Humphrey) of 1.15 dB for MS and 1.06 dB for MD.
Conclusions: The Heru visual field test correlated well with SITA Standard in a population of normal eyes and eyes with glaucoma.
Key Words: standard automated perimetry, visual field, glaucoma, augmented reality, virtual reality
(J Glaucoma 2023;32:647–657)