A Novel, Canada-Made, Virtual Reality Perimeter: Usability Compared to the Gold Standard

Theme: Glaucoma
What: Glaucoma
Part of: Glaucoma IV: New Tech / Glaucome IV: Nouvelles technologies
When: 6/1/2024, 11:15 AM - 12:45 PM
Where: Room | Salle 801

Abstract

Purpose: Patients with reduced mobility, short attention span and children are often unable to use table-mounted perimeters, such as the gold standard Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA). In many ophthalmologic practices, this can impede care for a significant portion of patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate user experience when using a Virtual Reality Perimeter (VRP) compared to the HFA in a clinical setting.

Study Design: Prospective, single-centre cohort study

Methods: The study was conducted on glaucoma suspect cases referred to our office for evaluation. 30 otherwise healthy patients were tested on each eye, on both a validated VRP (Retinalogik – Pico Neo3 Pro Eye) and the HFA. Patients then graded their experience comparing the VRP to the HFA, using a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly favour HFA, 3=neutral, 5=strongly favour VRP), on 5 different usability measures: learning curve, comfort, ability to focus on the task, engagement, and general preference. Descriptive statistics using mean and standard deviation (SD) were used to summarize the data. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to assess the relationship between age and each individual measure. Their prior experience (yes or no) with virtual reality (VR) and perimetry, and their usage of prescription eyewear (yes or no) were noted and a subgroup analysis with Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to evaluate for nonparametric differences. An alpha of 0.05 was used for statistical significance.

Results: Mean age was 64.43 (SD=12.30). Participants reported better user experience using the VRP compared to the HFA on all individual measures: learning curve (M=3.97, SD=0.81), comfort (M=4.30, SD=0.75), ability to focus on the task (M=4.10, SD=0.71), engagement (M=4.37, SD=0.67), and general preference (M=4.37, SD=0.72). Not one single patient favoured the HFA (range of all measures: [3-5]). There was no correlation between age and any individual measure (each R²(30)<.05). Subgroup analysis with the Mann-Whitney U test showed that new VR users were significantly more positive about their VRP experience compared to more experienced users on learning curve (p<0.001), ability to focus (p=0.001), engagement (p=0.006), but showed no difference on comfort (p=0.51) and general preference (p=0.27). The U test showed no statistically significant difference when looking at prior VF experience and glasses usage.

Conclusions: VRPs are starting to establish themselves as a serious, validated, and cheaper alternative to table-mounted perimeters, like the HFA. This study is the first to demonstrate that, even for patients able to use both devices, the VRP is what they do prefer, independent of age. It also showed that prior VF experience or glasses did not affect this preference, while new VR users showed an even stronger bias towards VRPs’ learning curve, ability to focus, level of engagement.

Presenter(s)

Presenting Author: Antoine Sylvestre-Bouchard

Additional Author(s):

Mina Mina, University of Calgary

Emi Sanders, Alberta Health Services

Andrew Crichton, University of Calgary

---