An Observational Study to Assess the Ability of Low-Vision Multi-Parameter Test (LVMPT) to Evaluate Functional Vision

Abstract

Research Question: For patients with ultra-low vision, it is difficult for clinicians and researchers to evaluate visual function.

Background and Significance: While there are several established tests meant to test single parameters of vision for these patients, functional vision requires multiple parameters. For accurate evaluation of true visual ability, multiple parameters need to be evaluated to assess a patient¿s visual ability, both for the detection of disease, and the evaluation of treatment effectiveness. Vision disorders are extremely impactiul both for individual patients, but also society at large. If clinicians and researchers are able to develop treatments for patients who have significant visual impairment, there needs to be a simple and effective way to evaluate functional vision. Our project aims to answer the following question: Does the 2nd generation 3D Low Vision Multi-Parameter Test (LVMPT) accurately assess visual function in ultra-low vision patients, and how does it compare to established tests such as the logMAR eye chart?

Materials and Methods: Our study separated our participants into two cohorts based on their logMAR scores. We then evaluated each participant using the LVMPT that Nanoscope Technologies has created. The parameters tested by the LVMPT were 3D shape recognition under different light conditions. These measurements were then compared with Visual Acuity (VA) and Visual Field (VF) for each patient.

Results: The results of the study include the LVMPT having a Pearson¿s Correlation Coefficient of -0.9 for participants in both groups when compared to their logMAR eye chart scores. The LVMPT also had a correlation of -0.921 when compared to their Humphrey Visual Field test.

Conclusion: This study provides evidence the LVMPT can be an effective tool to measure vision in patients with ultra-low vision by showing its correlation with established evaluation tools. More research needs to be done to determine how effective it is in determining functional visual ability.