Skip to main content
Log in

How sensitive is pupil campimetry in hemifield loss?

  • Neuro-ophthalmology
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The purpose of our study was to demonstrate the ability of pupil campimetry to reproduce visual field defects caused by pre— and retrogeniculate lesions of the visual pathway.

Methods

By means of infrared video pupillography, light responses to perimetric stimuli were recorded. The stimulus pattern consisted of 41 test spots of 4° diameter and 140 cd/m2 luminance distributed in the central (30°) visual field. Background luminance was 2.7 cd/m2. Eight patients with pregeniculate lesions and eight patients with retrogeniculate lesions of the visual pathway were examined. Pupil field was evaulated by three skilled visual field interpreters masked to the patients’ clinical data including conventional perimetry. The spatial concordance of the visual field and the pupil field was quantitatively assessed by the ratio of intersection area and union area of the observer’s result and the visual field defect measured by conventional perimetry. The ratios in the two cohorts were compared by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

Results

The concordance between pupil and conventional perimetry was better in the group of patients with retrogeniculate lesions. Ratios of the intersection area and the union area in this group were significantly higher than for the group with pregeniculate lesion of the visual pathway (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

According to our results, pupil campimetry demonstrates retrogeniculate visual pathway lesions well in contrast to pregeniculate lesions. This is in contradiction to the classical view of the pupillary pathways, where a retrogeniculate lesion actually should not influence pupillary function, whereas pregeniculate lesions should show pupillary scotomata. The cause might be that different components of the pupillary light reflex are being involved in pre— and retrogeniculate lesions, and the stimulus characteristics of pupil perimetry address better the components represented in the retrogeniculate pathway.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wernicke C (1883) Über hemianopische Pupillenreaktion. Fortschr Med 1:49–53

    Google Scholar 

  2. Loewenfeld IE (1993) The pupil. Anatomy, physiology and clinical applications. Wayne State University Press, Detroit

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brindley GS, Gautier-Smith PC, Lewin W (1969) Cortical blindness and the functions of the non-geniculate fibres of the optic tracts. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 32:259–264. doi:10.1136/jnnp.32.4.259

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Harms H (1951) Hemianopische Pupillenstarre. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 118:133–147

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Harms H, Aulhorn E, Ksinsik R (1973) Die Ergebnisse pupillomotorischer Perimetrie bei Sehhirnverletzten und die Vorstellungen über den Verlauf der Pupillenlichtreflexbahn. In: Dodt E, Schrader KE (eds) Die normale und die gestörte Pupillenbewegung. Bergmann, München, pp 72–82

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bresky R, Charles S (1969) Pupil motor perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 68:108–112

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cibis GW, Campos EC, Aulhorn E (1975) Pupillary hemiakinesia in suprageniculate lesions. Arch Ophthalmol 93:1322–1327

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Alexandridis E, Krastel H, Reuther R (1979) Pupillenreflexstörungen bei Läsionen der oberen Sehbahn. Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol 209:199–208. doi:10.1007/BF00414612

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hellner KA, Jensen W, Mueller-Jensen A (1978) Fernsehbildanalytische pupillographische Perimetrie bei Hemianopsie. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 172:731–735

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hamann KU, Hellner KA, Muller JA et al (1979) Videopupillographic and VER investigations in patients with congenital and acquired lesions of the optic radiation. Ophthalmologica 178:348–356

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kardon RH (1992) Pupil perimetry. Editorial review. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 3:565–570. doi:10.1097/00055735-199210000-00002

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kardon RH, Kirkali PA, Thompson HS (1991) Automated pupil perimetry. Ophthalmology 98:485–496

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Schmid R, Luedtke H, Wilhelm B, Wilhelm H (2005) Pupil campimetry in patients with visual field loss. Eur J Neurol 12:602–608. doi:10.1111/j.1468-1331.2005.01048.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Schiefer U, Nowomiejska K, Krapp E et al (2006) K-Train — a computer-based, interactive training program with an incorporated certification system for practicing kinetic perimetry: evaluation of acceptance and success rate. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 244:1300–1309. doi:10.1007/s00417-006-0291-9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Barbur JL (2004) Learning from the pupil — studies of basic mechanisms and clinical applications. In: Chalupa LM, Werner JS (eds) The Visual Neurosciences. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 641–656

    Google Scholar 

  16. Moore PA, Kardon RH (1995) Functional visual field loss: comparison of visual and pupil perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 36(Suppl):S455

    Google Scholar 

  17. Yoshitomi T, Matsui T, Mukuno K et al (1996) Objective visual field measurement using pupil perimetry — clinical applications. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 37(Suppl):S160

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rajan MS, Bremner FD, Riordan-Eva P (2002) Pupil perimetry in the diagnosis of functional visual field loss. J R Soc Med 95:498–500. doi:10.1258/jrsm.95.10.498

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors cordially thank Prof. Ulrich Schiefer for his comments and advice with our perimetric investigation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karolína Skorkovská.

Additional information

This study was supported by funds of the Marie Curie Training Site “Fighting Blindness” QLG5-CT-2001-60034 from the European Union

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Skorkovská, K., Wilhelm, H., Lüdtke, H. et al. How sensitive is pupil campimetry in hemifield loss?. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 247, 947–953 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-009-1040-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-009-1040-7

Keywords

Navigation