Field of dreamers and dreamed-up fields: functional and fake perimetry.

PURPOSE

Hysterical and malingering patients can manifest visual field defects on perimetry (visual field testing), including defects suggestive of true visual pathway pathology. It has been shown that control subjects can easily imitate some pathologic defects with automated, computed perimetry. The authors sought to determine whether subjects could imitate the same pathologic defect with manual and automated perimetry.

METHOD

Six subjects posed as patients with neurologic problems. They had manual perimetry with both an experienced and inexperienced technician followed by automated perimetry. They were later interviewed about the methods of the technicians and the difficulty of the exercise.

RESULTS

Four of six subjects easily imitated the assigned defects with both technicians on manual perimetry and with automated perimetry. These included quadrantic, altitudinal, hemianopic, and enlarged blind-spot defects. Two subjects who were assigned cecocentral and paracentral scotomas instead produced enlarged blind spots by manual perimetry and defects suggestive of chiasmal pathology by automated perimetry. Paradoxically, some subjects found that experienced technicians were easier to fool than inexperienced technicians because of the systematic way in which experienced technicians defined defects.

CONCLUSIONS

With minimal coaching, some subjects can imitate visual fields with enlarged blind spots, quadrantic, hemianopic, and altitudinal defects with ease and reproducibility by both automated and manual perimetry. Cecocentral and paracentral scotomas are harder to imitate but may be mistaken as representing chiasmal pathology. Paradoxically, experienced technicians may not be better at detecting hysterical or malingering individuals.