Purpose: To assess the intrasession test-retest reliability of scotopic cyan and scotopic red fundus-controlled perimetry (FCP) in normal subjects using a modified MAIA “microperimeter” (macular integrity assessment) device. Methods: Forty-seven normal eyes of 30 subjects (aged 33.8 years) underwent duplicate mesopic (achromatic stimuli, 400-800 nm), scotopic cyan (505 nm), and scotopic red (627 nm) FCP, using a grid of 49 stimuli over 14° of the central retina. Test-retest reliability for pointwise sensitivity (PWS), stability of fixation, reaction time and test duration were analyzed using mixed-effects models. Results: PWS test-retest reliability was good among all 3 types of retinal sensitivity assessments (coefficient of repeatability of 4.75 dB for mesopic, 5.26 dB for scotopic cyan, and 4.06 dB for scotopic red testing). While the mean sensitivity decreased with eccentricity for both mesopic and scotopic red testing, it was highest at 7° eccentricity for the scotopic cyan assessment (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The modified MAIA device allows for reliable scotopic FCP in normal subjects. Our findings suggest that testing of scotopic cyan sensitivity largely reflects rod function.

Keywords:
Microperimetry, Rod function, Cone function, Dark adaptation, Bland-Altman plots, Healthy eyes
1.
von Helmholtz H: Beschreibung des Augenspiegels; in von Helmholtz H: Beschreibung eines Augen-Spiegels. Berlin, Springer, 1851, pp 28-34.
2.
Trantas NG: Applications et resultats d'un moyen simple d'examen de la photosensibilité de la rétine. Bull Soc Ophthalmol Fr 1955;55:499-513.
3.
Meyers MP: The use of the visuscope: for mapping a field of retinal function. Am J Ophthalmol 1959;47:677-681.
4.
Awaya S: Spot scotometry: a new method to examine scotomas under direct ophthalmoscopy by using visuscope (euthyscope). Jpn J Ophthalmol 1972;16:144-157.
5.
Watzke RC, Allen L: Subjective slitbeam sign for macular disease. Am J Ophthalmol 1969;68:449-453.
6.
Kani K, Ogita Y: Fundus controlled perimetry; in Greve EL (ed): Third International Visual Field Symposium Tokyo, May 3-6, 1978. Tokyo, Springer, 1979, pp 341-350.
7.
Webb RH, Hughes GW: Scanning laser ophthalmoscope. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1981;28:488-492.
8.
Timberlake GT, Mainster MA, Webb RH, Hughes GW, Trempe CL: Retinal localization of scotomata by scanning laser ophthalmoscopy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1982;22:91-97.
9.
Holz FG, Jubb C, Fitzke FW, Bird AC, Pope FM: Dark adaptation and scotopic perimetry over “peau d'orange” in pseudoxanthoma elasticum. Br J Ophthalmol 1994;78:79-80.
10.
Schmitz-Valckenberg S, Ong EL, Rubin GS, Peto T, Tufail A, Egan CA, et al: Structural and functional changes over time in MacTel patients. Retina 2009;29:1314-1320.
11.
Berson EL, Gouras P, Gunkel RD: Rod responses in retinitis pigmentosa, dominantly inherited. Arch Ophthalmol 1968;80:58-67.
12.
Berson EL, Gouras P, Gunkel RD, Myrianthopoulos NC: Rod and cone responses in sex-linked retinitis pigmentosa. Arch Ophthalmol 1969;81:215-225.
13.
Arden GB, Carter RM, Hogg CR, Powell DJ, Ernst WJ, Clover GM, et al: Rod and cone activity in patients with dominantly inherited retinitis pigmentosa: comparisons between psychophysical and electroretinographic measurements. Br J Ophthalmol 1983;67:405-418.
14.
Lorenz B, Gyürüs P, Preising M, Bremser D, Gu S, Andrassi M, et al: Early-onset severe rod-cone dystrophy in young children with RPE65 mutations. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000;41:2735-2742.
15.
Curcio CA, Medeiros NE, Millican CL: Photoreceptor loss in age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1996;37:1236-1249.
16.
Shelley EJ, Madigan MC, Natoli R, Penfold PL, Provis JM: Cone degeneration in aging and age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127:483-492.
17.
Lim LS, Mitchell P, Seddon JM, Holz FG, Wong TY: Age-related macular degeneration. Lancet 2012;379:1728-1738.
18.
Owsley C, Jackson GR, Cideciyan AV, Huang Y, Fine SL, Ho AC, et al: Psychophysical evidence for rod vulnerability in age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000;41:267-273.
19.
Jackson GR, Owsley C, Curcio CA: Photoreceptor degeneration and dysfunction in aging and age-related maculopathy. Ageing Res Rev 2002;1:381-396.
20.
Steinberg JS, Fitzke FW, Fimmers R, Fleckenstein M, Holz FG, Schmitz-Valckenberg S: Scotopic and photopic microperimetry in patients with reticular drusen and age-related macular degeneration. JAMA Ophthalmol 2015;133:690-697.
21.
Steinberg JS, Sassmannshausen M, Fleckenstein M, Fimmers R, Oishi A, Holz FG, et al: Correlation of partial outer retinal thickness with scotopic and mesopic fundus-controlled perimetry in patients with reticular drusen. Am J Ophthalmol 2016;168:52-61.
22.
Jackson GR, Edwards JG: A short-duration dark adaptation protocol for assessment of age-related maculopathy. J Ocul Biol Dis Infor 2008;1:7-11.
23.
Jackson GR, Scott IU, Kim IK, Quillen DA, Iannaccone A, Edwards JG: Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of dark adaptometry for detection of age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2014;55:1427-1431.
24.
Nebbioso M, Barbato A, Pescosolido N: Scotopic microperimetry in the early diagnosis of age-related macular degeneration: preliminary study. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:671529.
25.
Rosli Y, Bedford SM, James AC, Maddess T: Photopic and scotopic multifocal pupillographic responses in age-related macular degeneration. Vision Res 2012;69:42-48.
26.
Smith VC, Pokorny J, Diddie KR: Color matching and the Stiles-Crawford effect in observers with early age-related macular changes. J Opt Soc Am A 1988;5:2113-2121.
27.
Holz FG, Gross-Jendroska M, Eckstein A, Hogg CR, Arden GB, Bird AC: Colour contrast sensitivity in patients with age-related Bruch's membrane changes. Ger J Ophthalmol 1995;4:336-341.
28.
Gerth C, Hauser D, Delahunt PB, Morse LS, Werner JS: Assessment of multifocal electroretinogram abnormalities and their relation to morphologic characteristics in patients with large drusen. Arch Ophthalmol 2003;121:1404-1414.
29.
Gerth C, Delahunt PB, Alam S, Morse LS, Werner JS: Cone-mediated multifocal electroretinogram in age-related macular degeneration: progression over a long-term follow-up. Arch Ophthalmol 2006;124:345-352.
30.
Jacobson SG, Voigt WJ, Parel J-M, Apathy PP, Nghiem-Phu L, Myers SW, et al: Automated light- and dark-adapted perimetry for evaluating retinitis pigmentosa. Ophthalmology 1986;93:1604-1611.
31.
Scholl HPN, Bellmann C, Dandekar SS, Bird AC, Fitzke FW: Photopic and scotopic fine matrix mapping of retinal areas of increased fundus autofluorescence in patients with age-related maculopathy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004;45:574-583.
32.
Crossland MD, Luong VA, Rubin GS, Fitzke FW: Retinal specific measurement of dark-adapted visual function: validation of a modified microperimeter. BMC Ophthalmol 2011;11:1.
33.
Midena E, Vujosevic S, Convento E, Cavarzeran F, Pilotto E: Microperimetry and fundus autofluorescence in patients with early age-related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol 2007;91:1499-1503.
34.
Salvatore S, Fishman GA, McAnany JJ, Genead MA: Association of dark-adapted visual function with retinal structural changes in patients with Stargardt disease. Retina 2014;34:989-995.
35.
Wu Z, Jung CJ, Ayton LN, Luu CD, Guymer RH: Test-retest repeatability of microperimetry at the border of deep scotomastest. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015;56:2606-2611.
36.
Bowl W, Stieger K, Lorenz B: Fundus-controlled two-color dark adaptometry with the Microperimeter MP1. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2015;253:965-972.
37.
Bowl W, Lorenz B, Jager M, Friedburg C: Improving detection of mild loss of retinal light increment sensitivity at the posterior pole with the microperimeter MP1. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54:4666-4674.
38.
Rohrschneider K, Springer C, Bültmann S, Vö HE: Microperimetry - comparison between the micro perimeter 1 and scanning laser ophthalmoscope-fundus perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 2005;139:125-134.
39.
Wentworth HA: A quantitative study of achromatic and chromatic sensitivity from center to periphery of the visual field. Psychol Monogr 1930;40:i.
40.
Sloan LL: Instruments and technics for the clinical testing of light sense: III. An apparatus for studying regional differences in light sense. Arch Ophthalmol 1939;22:233-251.
41.
Sloan LL: The threshold gradients of the rods and the cones: in the dark-adapted and in the partially light-adapted eye. Am J Ophthalmol 1950;33:1077-1089.
42.
Midena E: Microperimetry and Multimodal Retinal Imaging. Berlin, Springer, 2014.
43.
Johnson CA, Chauhan BC, Shapiro LR: Properties of staircase procedures for estimating thresholds in automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1992;33:2966-2974.
44.
Békésy GV: A new audiometer. Acta Otolaryngol 1947;35:411-422.
45.
R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2013. http://www.R-project.org.
46.
Wickham H: ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Dordrecht, Springer Science and Business Media, 2009.
47.
Bland JM, Altman D: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;327:307-310.
48.
Flammer J: The concept of visual field indices. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1986;224:389-392.
49.
Bouguer P: Traité d'optique sur la gradation de la lumière. Paris, HL Guerin & LF Delatour, 1760.
50.
Weber EH: De Pulsu, resorptione, auditu et tactu. Annotationes anatomicae et physiologicae. Leipzig, CF Koehler, 1834.
51.
Fechner GT: Das psychische Mass. 1858.
52.
Chen FK, Patel PJ, Xing W, Bunce C, Egan C, Tufail AT, et al: Test-retest variability of microperimetry using the Nidek MP1 in patients with macular disease. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009;50:3464-3472.
53.
Wall M, Woodward KR, Doyle CK, Zamba G: The effective dynamic ranges of standard automated perimetry sizes III and V and motion and matrix perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol 2010;128:570-576.
54.
Curcio CA, Sloan KR, Kalina RE, Hendrickson AE: Human photoreceptor topography. J Comp Neurol 1990;292:497-523.
55.
Curcio CA, Sloan KRJ, Packer O, Hendrickson AE, Kalina RE: Distribution of cones in human and monkey retina: individual variability and radial asymmetry. Science 1987;236:579-582.
56.
Kohfeld DL: Simple reaction time as a function of stimulus intensity in decibels of light and sound. J Exp Psychol 1971;88:251.
57.
Cao D, Zele AJ, Pokorny J: Linking impulse response functions to reaction time: rod and cone reaction time data and a computational model. Vision Res 2007;47:1060-1074.
58.
Sun H, Pokorny J, Smith VC: Rod-cone interactions assessed in inferred magnocellular and parvocellular postreceptoral pathways. J Vis 2001;1:42-54.
59.
MacLeod DI: Rods cancel cones in flicker. Nature 1972;235:173-174.
60.
Van den Berg T, Spekreijse H: Interaction between rod and cone signals studied with temporal sine wave stimulation. J Opt Soc Am 1977;67:1210-1217.
61.
Barbur JL: Reaction‐time determination of the latency between visual signals generated by rods and cones. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1982;2:179-185.
62.
Sharpe LT, Stockman A: Rod pathways: the importance of seeing nothing. Trends Neurosci 1999;22:497-504.
63.
Wu Z, Ayton LN, Guymer RH, Luu CD: Intrasession test-retest variability of microperimetry in age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54:7378-7385.
64.
Stockman A, Langendörfer M, Smithson HE, Sharpe LT: Human cone light adaptation: from behavioral measurements to molecular mechanisms. J Vis 2006;6:5.
65.
Troxler D: Über das Verschwinden gegebener Gegenstände innerhalb unseres Gesichtskreises. Ophthalmol Bibl 1804;2:1-53.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.