Purpose: To compare per-region macular sensitivity and delay from objective perimetry with Matrix perimetry and retinal thickness in mild diabetic macular edema (DMO). Methods: Thirty-three patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) aged 59.2 ± 10.5 years participated in a longitudinal study. Macular thickness, sensitivities and delays from the objectiveFIELD Analyzer (OFA), and Matrix perimeter sensitivities were mapped onto a common spatial layout to compute per-region correlations between structure/function measures. A generalized linear mixed-effects logistic regression model determined which variables contributed to clinical diagnosis of DMO. Results: For OFA, the mean sensitivity differences compared with normal in patients with T2D were negative and the mean delay differences positive, indicating lowered sensitivities and prolonged delays, both increasing with diabetes duration. Shorter diabetes duration could produce either localized peripheral hypersensitivities or shorter delays. Functional change could occur when retinal thickness was stable. Peripheral macular thickness correlated with central and peripheral OFA sensitivity and delay, all P < 0.0012 in DMO and a median of P = 0.001 without DMO; this was not true for Matrix sensitivities. The logistic model determined that peripheral thickness, OFA sensitivity (P = 0.043), and time in the study (P = 0.001) contribute independently to the odds of DMO versus no DMO. Conclusions: Mean sensitivities decreased and mean delays increased with duration of diabetes. Peripheral macular thickness correlated significantly with central and peripheral macular OFA sensitivity and delay. Peripheral macular thickness and functional measures may provide sensitive prognostic data. Translational Relevance: Functional loss can precede structural change in DMO, so including such functional assessment for deciding on treatment may be beneficial.

Purpose: Patients with advanced age-related macular degeneration (AMD) may have preserved visual function despite significant retinal structural changes. We aimed to evaluate the relationships among retinal thickness, macular sensitivity, and visual acuity (VA) in advanced AMD. Methods: We examined 43 eyes of 22 patients with advanced AMD (ages 66–93 years), prospectively recruited from the Canberra Hospital Ophthalmology Department. Visual function was measured on participants with low and high contrast visual acuity (LCVA and HCVA) and 10-2 Matrix visual fields. Retinal structure was determined with spectral domain optical coherence tomography (OCT), and customized software mapped the 64 OCT macular thickness regions onto the 44 regions of the 10-2 test. Results: Median retinal thickness at each 10-2 region was near normal. Just 7 of 88 regions from the OCT analysis that were thicker than the median had sensitivity that declined significantly with increasing thickness (r = −0.698 ± 0.082, mean ± SD), whereas 17 of 88 thinner regions showed significantly decreasing sensitivity with decreasing thickness (r = 0.723 ± 0.078). The absolute value of deviations from median optical coherence tomography thickness (aOCT) outside the central eight degrees was significantly correlated with HCVA (r = −0.34, P = 0.047). Thickness in the central eight degrees was not. Similarly, matrix sensitivities inside the central eight degrees were significantly correlated with outer aOCT (r = −0.49, P = 0.002). Conclusions: Retinal thickness outside eight degrees were significantly associated with HCVA and macular sensitivity. These results suggest that outer macular thickness may be a useful prognostic indicator in AMD. Translational Relevance: Retinal structure at the borders of the macula may be a surrogate marker of vision and retinal thickness near fixation.

Objective: Previous work on temporally sparse multifocal methods suggests that the results are correlated with disability and progression in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). Here, we assess the diagnostic power of three cortically mediated sparse multifocal pupillographic objective perimetry (mfPOP) methods that quantified response-delay and light-sensitivity at up to 44 regions of both visual fields concurrently. Methods: One high-spatial-resolution mfPOP method, P129, and two rapid medium-resolution methods, W12 and W20, were tested on 44 PwMS and controls. W12 and W20 took 82 s to test both visual fields concurrently, providing response delay and sensitivity at each field location, while P129 took 7 min. Diagnostic power was assessed using areas under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves and effect-size (Hedges’ g). Linear models examined significance. Concurrent testing of both eyes permitted assessment of between-eye asymmetries. Results: Per-region response delays and asymmetries achieved AUROCs of 86.6% ± 4.72% (mean ± SE) in relapsing–remitting MS, and 96.5% ± 2.30% in progressive MS. Performance increased with increasing disability scores, with even moderate EDSS 2 to 4.5 PwMS producing AUROCs of 82.1 to 89.8%, Hedge’s g values up to 2.06, and p = 4.0e − 13. All tests performed well regardless of any history of optic neuritis. W12 and W20 performed as well or better than P129. Conclusion: Overall, the 82-s tests (W12 and W20) performed better than P129. The results suggest that mfPOP assesses a correlate of disease severity rather than a history of inflammation, and that it may be useful in the clinical management of PwMS.

Précis: An objective perimetry method provides four 30-2 style reports in 8 minutes. These comprise sensitivity and delay reports for both eyes. A combined report format shows comparable diagnostic power to 2 forms of automated perimetry. Purpose: To compare objective perimetry with 2 forms of standard automated perimetry (SAP) in glaucoma. Methods: The study cohort contained 40 persons with glaucoma (PwG) and 94 normal control subjects. The PwG had both perimetric and preperimetric eyes. Multifocal pupillographic objective perimetry was performed with the objectiveField Analyser (OFA), which independently assesses the visual fields of both eyes concurrently. Its OFA30 test assessed the central ±30 degrees, and the OFA15 test assessed the central ±15 degrees, both providing 30-2 style reports. The OFA tests were repeated 2 weeks apart to assess test-retest variability (TRV). OFA was compared with Matrix and HFA-SITA fast 24-2 threshold testing. Diagnostic power was quantified as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC). Test durations, mean defects, and pattern standard deviations of the 4 tests were compared. Results: At a median of 4.09±0.02 minutes/eye the OFA tests were quicker than SAP (all P≤0.0001), 2 minutes/eye if OFA per-region sensitivities and delays are considered separately. The %AUROCs for OFA, Matrix, and HFA were not significantly different, averaging 93±3% (mean±SD) in perimetric eyes, and 73±6% in preperimetric eyes. For moderate to severe fields, OFA TRV was less than the published results for SAP. OFA30 mean defects were significantly correlated between repeats (r=0.91) and with OFA15 (r=0.93, both P<0.0001). Conclusions: OFA provides extra functional measures in the form of per-region delays and between-eye asymmetries. Both the OFA wide-field and macular tests provided comparable diagnostic power to SAP and better TRV in damaged eyes.