Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 6, 2026
Dynamic Visual Tests to Identify and Quantify Visual Damage and Repair Following Demyelination in Optic Neuritis Patients
Published on: April 14, 2014
Diagnostic accuracy of the Matrix 24-2 and original N-30 frequency-doubling technology tests compared with standard
Lyne Racette1, Felipe A Medeiros, Linda M Zangwill
1Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Department of Ophthalmology, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093-0946, USA. lracette@glaucoma.ucsd.edu
Purpose:
To compare the diagnostic accuracy of the Matrix frequency-doubling technology (FDT) 24-2, first-generation FDT N-30 (FDT N-30), and standard automated perimetry (SAP) tests of visual function.
Methods:
One eye of each of 85 glaucoma patients and 81 healthy controls from the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study was included. Evidence of glaucomatous optic neuropathy on stereophotographs was used to classify the eyes. Matrix FDT 24-2, first-generation FDT N-30, and SAP-SITA 24-2 tests were performed on all participants within 3 months. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated and used to determine sensitivity levels at 80% and 90% specificity for mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), number of total deviation (TD), and pattern deviation (PD) points triggered at less than 5% and 1%. The tests were compared using the best parameter for each test (that with the highest area under the ROC curve) and with the PSD.
Results:
The best parameters were MD for SAP (0.680), PSD for FDT N-30 (0.733), and number of TD less than 5% points for FDT 24-2 (0.774). Using the best parameter, the area under the ROC curve was significantly larger for FDT 24-2 than for SAP (P = 0.01). No statistically significant differences were observed between SAP and FDT N-30 (P = 0.21) and FDT N-30 and FDT 24-2 (P = 0.26). Similar results were obtained when the PSD was used to compare the tests, with the exception that the area under the ROC curve for the FDT N-30 test (0.733) was significantly larger than that of the SAP-SITA (0.641; P = 0.03).
Conclusions:
The performance of the Matrix FDT 24-2 was similar to that of the first-generation FDT N-30. The Matrix FDT 24-2 test was consistently better than SAP at discriminating between healthy and glaucomatous eyes. Further studies are needed to evaluate the ability of the Matrix FDT 24-2 to monitor glaucoma progression.
