Previous studies and community information about everyday difficulties in age-related macular degeneration (AMD) have focussed on domains such as reading and driving. Here, we provide the first in-depth examination of how impaired face perception impacts social interactions and quality of life in AMD. We also develop a Faces and Social Life in AMD brochure and information sheet, plus accompanying conversation starter, aimed at AMD patients and those who interact with them (family, friends, nursing home staff). Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 21 AMD patients covering the full range from mild vision loss to legally blind. Thematic analysis was used to explore the range of patient experiences. Patients reported faces appeared blurred and/or distorted. They described recurrent failures to recognise others' identity, facial expressions and emotional states, plus failures of alternative non-face strategies (e.g., hairstyle, voice). They reported failures to follow social nuances (e.g., to pick up that someone was joking), and feelings of missing out ('I can't join in'). Concern about offending others (e.g., by unintentionally ignoring them) was common, as were concerns of appearing fraudulent ('Other people don't understand'). Many reported social disengagement. Many reported specifically face-perception-related reductions in social life, confidence, and quality of life. All effects were observed even with only mild vision loss. Patients endorsed the value of our Faces and Social Life in AMD Information Sheet, developed from the interview results, and supported future technological assistance (digital image enhancement). Poor face perception in AMD is an important domain contributing to impaired social interactions and quality of life. This domain should be directly assessed in quantitative quality of life measures, and in resources designed to improve community understanding. The identity-related social difficulties mirror those in prosopagnosia, of cortical rather than retinal origin, implying findings may generalise to all low-vision disorders.

Multifocal pupillographic objective perimetry (mfPOP) shows regions of slight hypersensitivity away from retinal regions damaged by diabetes or age-related macular degeneration (AMD). This study examines if such results also appear in multifocal visual evoked potentials (mfVEPs) recorded on the same day in the same patients. The pupil control system receives input from the extra-striate cortex, so we also examined evidence for such input. We recruited subjects with early type 2 diabetes (T2D) with no retinopathy, and patients with unilateral exudative AMD. Population average responses of the diabetes patients, and the normal fellow eyes of AMD patients, showed multiple regions of significant hypersensitivity (p < 0.05) on both mfPOP and mfVEPs. For mfVEPs the occipital electrodes showed fewer hypersensitive regions than the surrounding electrodes. More advanced AMD showed regions of suppression becoming centrally concentrated in the exudative AMD areas. Thus, mfVEP electrodes biased towards extra-striate cortical responses (surround electrodes) appeared to show similar hypersensitive visual field locations to mfPOP in early stage diabetic and AMD damage. Our findings suggest that hypersensitive regions may be a potential biomarker for future development of AMD or non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy, and may be more informative than visual acuity which remains largely undisturbed during early disease.

Purpose: Retinal light sensitivity loss has been shown to occur prior to other signs of retinopathy and may predict the sight-threatening sequelae. A rapid, objective perimetric test could augment diabetes care. We investigated the clinical use of multifocal pupillographic objective perimetry (mfPOP) to identify patients with and without diabetic retinopathy. Methods: Retinopathy severity was determined using the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) standard for fundus photography. Pupillary responses were measured from both eyes of 25 adults with none to moderate diabetic retinopathy and 24 age-matched controls, using three mfPOP stimulus variants. Multifocal pupillographic objective perimetry stimulus variants tested 44 regions per eye arranged in a five-ring dartboard layout presented within either the central 30° or 60° of fixation. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were produced from contraction amplitudes and time to peak responses. Results: Regression analysis revealed that mean amplitude deviations were larger with severity of early retinopathy. On average, the longest delays were measured in patients with no retinopathy. The brightest wide-field stimuli produced the highest area under the ROC curve for differentiating eyes with no retinopathy from nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) and from healthy eyes (100 ± 0.0%, mean ± SE). The asymmetry in local delay deviations between eyes tended to produce higher sensitivity and specificity than amplitude deviations. Conclusions: Asymmetry in local response delays measured by mfPOP may provide useful information regarding the severity of diabetic retinopathy and may have clinical use as a rapid, noninvasive method for identifying functional loss even in the absence of NPDR.

Purpose.: To investigate the efficacy of multifocal pupillographic objective perimetry (mfPOP) to quantify the effects of intravitreal ranibizumab injection for choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Methods.: mfPOP visual fields from 20 patients with unilateral exudative AMD treated with intravitreal ranibizumab were measured before and after 3 months of treatment and were compared with that in 30 normal subjects. Two stimulus types consisting of ensembles of 24 or 44 independent stimuli per eye had a mean presentation interval at each region of 1 second. Pupil responses were recorded with video cameras under infrared illumination. Multiple linear models were fitted to contraction amplitudes and delay to peak responses, to determine the independent effects of exudative AMD before and after ranibizumab therapy. Results.: After 3 months of treatment, mean additional response delays compared to normal subjects for the 24-region stimulus improved significantly (P < 5 × 10⁻⁹) from a mean of 18.82 ± 3.0 ms at baseline to 7.45 ± 3.15 ms. The mean effect of exudative AMD at baseline decreased constriction amplitude by −1.11 ± 0.24 dB (P < 0.00001) with little improvement after ranibizumab therapy. Small pretreatment elevations of extrafoveal sensitivity correlated with improvements in central retinal thickness (CRT) after treatment (P < 0.0005). Conclusions.: Improvements in mfPOP contraction amplitudes and time to peak responses were measured in eyes treated with intravitreal ranibizumab; however, response delays appeared to be the most indicative of functional improvement. Confirmation of hypersensitivity in the extrafoveal field in a larger group may support this finding as a prognostic marker for good treatment outcomes.

Visual field (VF) testing dates back to fifth century B.C. It plays a pivotal role in the diagnosis, management, and prognosis of retinal and neurological diseases. This review summarizes each of the different VF tests and perimetric methods, including the advantages and disadvantages and adherence to the desired standard diagnostic criteria. The review targets beginners and eye care professionals and includes history and evolution, qualitative and quantitative tests, and subjective and objective perimetric methods. VF testing methods have evolved in terms of technique, precision, user-friendliness, and accuracy. Consequently, some earlier perimetric techniques, often still effective, are not used or have been forgotten. Newer technologies may not always be advantageous because of higher costs, and they may not achieve the desired sensitivity and specificity. VF testing is most often used in glaucoma and neurological diseases, but new objective methods that also measure response latencies are emerging for the management of retinal diseases. Given the varied perimetric methods available, clinicians are advised to select appropriate methods to suit their needs and target disease and to decide on applying simple vs. complex tests or between using subjective and objective methods. Newer, rapid, non-contact, objective methods may provide improved patient satisfaction and allow for the testing of children and the infirm.