ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Blind Spot Displacement in Binocular Virtual Reality Perimetry: Incidence and Potential Determinants in Healthy Participants.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate factors associated with unexpected physiologic blind spot displacement (BSD) during visual field testing with a head-mounted virtual reality perimeter (VRP). Methods: Phase 1 evaluated 65 healthy participants undergoing binocular VRP testing (VisionOne system) to determine BSD incidence and compare baseline refractive error between BSD and non-BSD groups. Phase 2 compared refractive status, horizontal phoria (Maddox Wing test), and ocular dominance assessed with real-world (RW) and Unity3D VR-adapted Dolman paradigms in 14 BSD and 17 non-BSD participants. Exploratory OCT-based disc-foveal angle (DFA) characterization was available in nine BSD cases. Results: BSD was identified in 14 participants (19 eyes), yielding an incidence of 21.5% (14/65). Participants with BSD had significantly greater myopia than controls (-2.68 ± 2.45 D vs -0.58 ± 1.67 D; P = 0.012), whereas horizontal phoria did not differ significantly (5.29 ± 3.47 Δ vs 3.71 ± 4.19 Δ; P = 0.261). Clinically significant anisometropia (≥1.0 D) was present in three BSD participants, two with binocular BSD. BSD occurred most often in the non-dominant eye (50.0%, 7/14). Dominance-assignment instability or transition patterns were observed in 28.6% (4/14) of BSD cases across RW and VR assessments. In nine BSD cases undergoing exploratory OCT, DFA values were reviewed descriptively in relation to BSD direction. Conclusion: BSD was observed during binocular immersive VRP and was associated with greater myopic refractive error. Ocular dominance behavior and OCT-based DFA characterization may provide exploratory context for its spatial patterns. Recognition of BSD may help improve calibration, fixation monitoring, and interpretation of apparent scotoma patterns in VRP.
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.