ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2020
Useful Field of View Performance in the Intact Visual Field of Hemianopia Patients.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Abnormal Ipsilesional Hemifields and Improvement Post-Biofeedback Training in Patients with Hemianopia Measured with the MAIA Microperimeter.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Transhemispheric optic pathway degeneration following unilateral post-geniculate lesions.Brain communications · 2026Article
- Eye Tracking in Optometry: A Systematic Review.Journal of eye movement research · 2023Article
- An Audiovisual 3D-Immersive Stimulation Program in Hemianopia Using a Connected Device.The American journal of case reports · 2021Article
- When You Do Not Get the Whole Picture: Scene Perception After Occipital Cortex Lesions.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Postchiasmatic brain damage commonly results in an area of reduced visual sensitivity or blindness in the contralesional hemifield. Previous studies have shown that the ipsilesional visual field can be impaired too. Here, we examine whether assessing visual functioning of the "intact" ipsilesional visual field can be useful to understand difficulties experienced by patients with visual field defects. Methods: We compared the performance of 14 patients on a customized version of the useful field of view test that presents stimuli in both hemifields but only assesses functioning of their intact visual half-field (iUFOV) with that of equivalent hemifield assessments in 17 age-matched healthy control participants. In addition, we mapped visual field sensitivity with the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Last, we used an adapted version of the National Eye Institute Visual Quality of Life-25 to measure their experienced visual quality of life. Results: We found that patients performed worse on the second and third iUFOV subtests, but not on the first subtest. Furthermore, patients scored significantly worse on almost every subscale, except ocular pain. Summed iUFOV scores (assessing the intact hemifield only) and Humphrey field analyzer scores (assessing both hemifields combined) showed almost similar correlations with the subscale scores of the adapted National Eye Institute Visual Quality of Life-25. Conclusions: The iUFOV test is sensitive to deficits in the visual field that are not picked up by traditional perimetry. We therefore believe this task is of interest for patients with postchiasmatic brain lesions and should be investigated further.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.