Relationship Between Humphrey Automated Perimetry and Virtual Reality-Based Perimetry: A Constant dB Offset and Normative Data
Source abstract
Abstract
Background: Automated visual field testing is fundamental in ophthalmology, but differences in stimulus scaling and luminance between devices hinder direct comparison of sensitivity values. Virtual reality (VR)-based perimetry has emerged as a portable alternative, yet its relationship with conventional perimetry requires clarification. Methods: This prospective cross-sectional study included 60 healthy participants stratified into younger (<50 years) and older (≥50 years) groups. Differential light sensitivity was assessed in the right eye using Humphrey Automated Perimetry (HFA) with the 30-2 test pattern and a VR-based perimeter (Dicopt-Pro) in randomized order. Pointwise sensitivity values were analyzed using linear regression and Bland–Altman analysis, and sensitivity profiles were examined as a function of visual field eccentricity. Results: A strong linear relationship was observed between HFA and Dicopt-Pro sensitivity values in both age groups (R ≥ 0.96). A systematic and approximately constant inter-device offset was identified, with mean differences of 15.7 ± 0.4 dB in younger subjects and 13.7 ± 0.5 dB in older subjects. Bland–Altman analysis showed consistent bias without proportional error. Dicopt-Pro sensitivity profiles demonstrated an eccentricity-dependent decline comparable to HFA while preserving age-related differences. Conclusions: VR-based perimetry using Dicopt-Pro shows sensitivity patterns closely aligned with conventional Humphrey perimetry when a systematic, age-specific inter-device offset is considered, enabling clinically meaningful interpretation of Dicopt-Pro results within an HFA-referenced framework.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies · Glaucoma and retinal disorders · Corneal surgery and disorders
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Optics and Optometry, Faculty of Optics and Optometry, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28037 Madrid, Spain
Applied Vision Research Group, Faculty of Optics and Optometry, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28037 Madrid, Spain
Hospital Doce de Octubre Research Institute (i + 12), 28041 Madrid, Spain
References (22)
Show source-provided references
1. The evolution of visual field testing: A 40-year perspective on modern perimetry in glaucoma10.1016/j.ogla.2025.08.001 ↗
2. Multi-flash campimetry as an indicator of visual field loss in glaucoma10.1097/00006324-198601000-00007 ↗
3. Static automated perimetry in the diagnosis of glaucoma: Assessment of disease progression10.17116/oftalma202313905196 ↗
4. The effect of perimetric experience in normal subjects10.1001/archopht.1989.01070010083032 ↗
5. Prospective comparison of VisuALL virtual reality perimetry and Humphrey automated perimetry in glaucoma10.5005/jp-journals-10078-1434 ↗
6. Remote perimetry in a virtual reality metaverse environment for out-of-hospital functional eye screening compared against the gold standard Humphrey visual fields perimeter: A proof-of-concept pilot study10.2196/45044 ↗
7. Virtual reality portable perimetry and home monitoring of glaucoma: Retention and compliance over a 2-year period10.1016/j.xops.2024.100639 ↗
8. Validation of a head-mounted virtual reality visual field screening device10.1097/IJG.0000000000001415 ↗
9. A comparison of global indices between the Medmont automated perimeter and the Humphrey field analyzer10.1136/bjo.2007.114926 ↗
10. Conversion factor for comparison of data from Humphrey and Medmont automated perimeters10.1111/j.1444-0938.1999.tb06779.x ↗
11. The influence of decreased retinal illumination on automated perimetric threshold measurements10.1016/0002-9394(89)90855-6 ↗
12. Anderson, D.R., and Patella, V.M. (1999). Automated Static Perimetry, Mosby. [2nd ed.].
13. (1999). Ophthalmic Instruments—Perimeters (Standard No. ISO 12866).
14. The long-term fluctuation of the visual field in stable glaucoma
15. Hekmatjah, N., Chibututu, C., Han, Y., Keenan, J.D., and Oatts, J.T. (2025). Virtual reality perimetry compared to standard automated perimetry in adults with glaucoma: A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 20.10.1371/journal.pone.0318074 ↗
16. Comparison of a novel head-mounted perimeter versus the Humphrey field analyzer10.1016/j.ogla.2024.11.007 ↗
17. Zeppieri, M., Gagliano, C., Cappellani, F., Visalli, F., D’Esposito, F., Avitabile, A., Amato, R., Cuna, A., and Pellegrini, F. (2025). Clinical assessment of a virtual reality perimeter versus the Humphrey field analyzer: Comparative reliability, usability, and prospective applications. Vision, 9.10.3390/vision9040086 ↗
18. Neural contribution to spatiotemporal contrast sensitivity decline in healthy ageing eyes10.1016/0042-6989(90)90066-T ↗
19. Rai, B.B., Sabeti, F., Carle, C.F., and Maddess, T. (2024). Visual field tests: A narrative review of different perimetric methods. J. Clin. Med., 13.10.3390/jcm13092458 ↗
20. Fatigue effects in automated perimetry10.1364/AO.27.001030 ↗
21. What reduction in standard automated perimetry variability would improve the detection of visual field progression?10.1167/iovs.10-6255 ↗
22. Measurement precision in a series of visual fields acquired by the standard and fast versions of the Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.4237 ↗