Purpose. To determine the agreement between the Humphrey Matrix perimeter 10-2 test and the 10-2 Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) test when assessing visual function in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD).
Methods. Forty-two eyes of 42 subjects with AMD (average 75.0 years, SD = 6.2: median visual acuity in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution of 0.26, range, −0.12 to 1.04) were evaluated with the Matrix and HFA 10-2 visual field tests. Mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation, and test time were recorded. We calculated spatial concordance of individual test locations, being the proportion of spatially agreeing locations with identical classification (normal vs. abnormal, p < 5%) on the pattern deviation plot. As multiple HFA stimuli overlapped with some Matrix locations, several criteria for grouping HFA data into locations were investigated.
Results. Both MD and pattern standard deviation were significantly correlated for the two devices (r2 = 0.79 and r2 = 0.80, respectively, p < 0.0001). Using our standard criterion for abnormal HFA locations (≥50% stimuli abnormal), the median spatial concordance was 0.76, with 95% of tests giving a concordance of ≥0.59. A small, but significant, increase in concordance occurred when a stricter criterion (all stimuli abnormal at a location) was applied. Median fixation loss percentages were 7 and 0% for the HFA and Matrix, respectively. Visual acuity in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution showed modest correlations with both defect depth (HFA MD: r2 = 0.39, p < 0.0001) and size of defect (number of abnormal points on the HFA: r2 = 0.24, p < 0.0001).
Conclusions. Using a simple metric to calculate spatial concordance, the Matrix 10-2 test quantifies the spatial extent of significant depression of the central visual fields in AMD in a manner similar to the HFA 10-2. The spatial extent and depth of central visual field loss in AMD are only modestly predicted by visual acuity measurements.
Department of Optometry & Vision Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia (AJA), Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa (CAJ), and Department of Ophthalmology & Vision Science, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California (JSW).
Received February 2, 2010; accepted January 24, 2011.
Department of Optometry & Vision Sciences The University of Melbourne Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010 Australia e-mail: email@example.com