Purpose: Peripheral vision is important for mobility, balance, and guidance of attention, but standard perimetry examines only <20% of the entire visual field. We report on the relation between central and peripheral visual field damage, and on retest variability, with a simple approach for automated kinetic perimetry (AKP) of the peripheral field.
Methods: Thirty patients with glaucoma (median age 68, range 59-83 years; median Mean Deviation -8.0, range -16.3-0.1 dB) performed AKP and static automated perimetry (SAP) (German Adaptive Threshold Estimation strategy, 24-2 test). Automated kinetic perimetry consisted of a fully automated measurement of a single isopter (III.1.e). Central and peripheral visual fields were measured twice on the same day.
Results: Peripheral and central visual fields were only moderately related (Spearman's ρ, 0.51). Approximately 90% of test-retest differences in mean isopter radius were < ±4 deg. Relative to the range of measurements in this sample, the retest variability of AKP was similar to that of SAP.
Conclusions: Patients with similar central visual field loss can have strikingly different peripheral visual fields, and therefore measuring the peripheral visual field may add clinically valuable information.