Psychomotor Vigilance and Visual Field Test Performance

Abstract

Introduction: Visual field test is an invaluable tool to evaluate the detection and progression of glaucoma. On the other hand, as a subjective test, reliable results depend on patients' optimum performance including vigilance during the test. The purpose of this study was to understand patient’s attitude and preferences about the visual field test taking, and in addition to assess the relationship between the reliability indices of visual field testing (VFT) and the Walter Reed Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT). Material and methods: In this cross-sectional, non-interventional study, VFT reliability indices were recorded for all 140 patients. In the 46 patients who completed the PVT, average reaction time and minimum reaction times were recorded. All 140 patients completed a survey about their VFT experience. Results: Based on the survey results, most subjects found VFT to be difficult. Subjects who rated their VFT performance excellent/good had similar VFT reliability rates compared to the ones with fair/poor self-assessments. The average reaction time (RT) was 0.6 seconds (0.3–1.9 seconds). Higher average RT was associated with increased age and less formal education (p < 0.001 and 0.03, respectively). There was a marginally significant correlation between average RT and the VFT “reliability” status (p = 0.045). Conclusions: While VFT is the least favorable part of the work-up for glaucoma patients, their self-assessment about VFT performance did not correlate with current VF reliability indicators. Although reliability of the VFT was not strongly affected by slower reaction times when tested by the PVT, the effect of psychomotor reaction time on other aspects of test outcomes is unknown and warrants further investigation.

• Reliability
• Self-Assesment of performance
• survey
• visual field test
• Walter Reed Palm-Held Psychomotor Vigilance Test

Acknowledgements

We thank Research to Prevent Blindness and the Pat and Willard Walker Eye Research Center Grants for their support. Financial support: Grants were obtained from Research to Prevent Blindness and Pat and Willard Walker Eye Research Center. The funding organizations had no role in the design or conduct of this research.

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.