Rodallec T, Hamelin N, Blatrix C, Brion F, Mathieu C, Goemaere I, Nordmann J-P
Service d'Ophtalmologie 2, Hôpital des Quinze-Vingts, Paris.
J Fr Ophtalmol. 2003 Jun;26(6):591-5.
Automatic perimetry examination requires the patient's cooperation, but the programs used check response validity. This study evaluated the possibility of patient cheating on this examination.
This study investigated 27 visual fields of automatic perimetry with patients who had no ophthalmological history. Each subject had to reproduce a visual field loss that was observed for 5 minutes (two diffuse losses, five fields reflecting hemianopsia, four reflecting quadranopsia, two tubular losses, five nasal steps, nine absolute and arciform losses). The 24-2 Fastpac of the Humphrey field analyzer and the G2 of the Octopus perimeter were used for this study.
Simple deficits were easy to reproduce, but visual field defects are often deeper and simulated test results tend to be too perfect. On the other hand, complex defects such as arciform scotoma or nasal steps were more difficult to reproduce. Visual field defect simulations were exaggerated beyond what was reasonable.
This study reports on whether it is possible to cheat with automatic perimetry. The different parameters analyzed by computer programs are not able to detect cheating patients.
