ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2025
Mapping simulated visual field defects with movie-viewing pupil perimetry.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Where you didn't look: Perimetry based on the analysis of free-viewing gaze behavior while watching movie clips.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Snip & Stitch: a simple and accessible correction for the pupil foreshortening error.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Uncovering Distinct Drivers of Covert Attention in Complex Environments With Pupillometry.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAssessing the quality of the visual field is important for the diagnosis of ophthalmic and neurological diseases and, consequently, for rehabilitation. Visual field defects (VFDs) are typically assessed using standard automated perimetry (SAP). However, SAP requires participants to understand instructions, maintain fixation and sustained attention, and provide overt responses. These aspects make SAP less suitable for very young or cognitively impaired populations. Here we investigate the feasibility of a new and less demanding form of perimetry. This method assesses visual sensitivity based on pupil responses while performing the perhaps simplest task imaginable: watching movies.
methodWe analyzed an existing dataset, with healthy participants (n = 70) freely watching movies with or without gaze-contingent simulated VFDs, either hemianopia (left- or right-sided) or glaucoma (large nasal arc, small nasal arc, and tunnel vision). Meanwhile, their gaze and pupil size were recorded. Using a recently published toolbox (Open-DPSM), we modeled the relative contribution of visual events to the pupil responses to indicate relative visual sensitivity across the visual field and to dissociate between conditions with and without simulated VFDs.
resultConditions with and without simulated VFDs could be dissociated, with an AUC ranging from 0.85 to 0.97, depending on the specific simulated VFD condition. In addition, the dissociation was better when including more movies in the modeling but the model with as few movies as 10 movies was sufficient for a good classification (AUC ranging from 0.84 to 0.96).
conclusionMovie-viewing pupil perimetry is promising in providing complementary information for the diagnosis of VFDs, especially for those who are unable to perform conventional perimetry.
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.