Improving Spatial Resolution and Test Times of Visual Field Testing Using ARREST

Purpose: Correctly classifying progression in moderate to advanced glaucoma is difficult. Pointwise visual field test-retest variability is high for sensitivities below approximately 20 dB; hence, reliably detecting progression requires many test repeats. We developed a testing approach that does not attempt to threshold accurately in areas with high variability, but instead expends presentations increasing spatial fidelity.

Methods: Our visual field procedure Australian Reduced Range Extended Spatial Test (ARREST; a variant of the Bayesian procedure Zippy Estimation by Sequential Testing [ZEST]) applies the following approach: once a location has an estimated sensitivity of 17 dB to "defect", or (3) ''defect" to blind. To test this approach we used an empirical database of progressing moderate-advanced 24-2 visual fields (121 eyes) that we "reverse engineered" to create visual field series that progressed from normal to the end observed field. ARREST and ZEST were run on these fields with test accuracy, presentation time, and ability to detect progression compared.

Results: With specificity for detecting progression matched at 95%, ZEST and ARREST showed similar sensitivity for detecting progression. However, ARREST used approximately 25% to 40% fewer test presentations to achieve this result in advanced visual field damage. ARREST spatially defined the visual field deficit with greater precision than ZEST due to the addition of non-24-2 locations.

Conclusions: Spending time trying to accurately measure visual field locations that have high variability is not productive. Our simulations indicate that giving up attempting to quantify size Ill white-on-white sensitivities below 17 dB and using the presentations saved to test extra locations should better describe progression in moderate-to-advanced glaucoma in shorter time.

Translational Relevance: ARREST is a new visual field test algorithm that provides better spatial definition of visual field defects in faster test time than current procedures. This outcome is achieved by substituting inaccurate quantification of sensitivities