ArticleJournal of vision2022
Comparison of unifocal, flicker, and multifocal pupil perimetry methods in healthy adults.
Article in Journal of vision, 2022. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping simulated visual field defects with movie-viewing pupil perimetry.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Article
- Diagnostic performance of pupil perimetry in detecting hemianopia under standard and virtual reality viewing conditions.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Article
- Method to Quickly Map Multifocal Pupillary Response Fields (mPRF) Using Frequency Tagging.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The Trade-Off Between Luminance and Color Contrast Assessed With Pupil Responses.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Effects of Stimulus Luminance, Stimulus Color and Intra-Stimulus Color Contrast on Visual Field Mapping in Neurologically Impaired Adults Using Flicker Pupil Perimetry.Eye and brain · 2023Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To this day, the most popular method of choice for testing visual field defects (VFDs) is subjective standard automated perimetry. However, a need has arisen for an objective, and less time-consuming method. Pupil perimetry (PP), which uses pupil responses to onsets of bright stimuli as indications of visual sensitivity, fulfills these requirements. It is currently unclear which PP method most accurately detects VFDs. Hence, the purpose of this study is to compare three PP methods for measuring pupil responsiveness. Unifocal (UPP), flicker (FPP), and multifocal PP (MPP) were compared by monocularly testing the inner 60 degrees of vision at 44 wedge-shaped locations. The visual field (VF) sensitivity of 18 healthy adult participants (mean age and SD 23.7 ± 3.0 years) was assessed, each under three different artificially simulated scotomas for approximately 4.5 minutes each (i.e. stimulus was not or only partially present) conditions: quadrantanopia, a 20-, and 10-degree diameter scotoma. Stimuli that were fully present on the screen evoked strongest, partially present stimuli evoked weaker, and absent stimuli evoked the weakest pupil responses in all methods. However, the pupil responses in FPP showed stronger discriminative power for present versus absent trials (median d-prime = 6.26 ± 2.49, area under the curve [AUC] = 1.0 ± 0) and MPP performed better for fully present versus partially present trials (median d-prime = 1.19 ± 0.62, AUC = 0.80 ± 0.11). We conducted the first in-depth comparison of three PP methods. Gaze-contingent FPP had best discriminative power for large (absolute) scotomas, whereas MPP performed slightly better with small (relative) scotomas.
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.