Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 17, 2026

A Standardized Obstacle Course for Assessment of Visual Function in Ultra Low Vision and Artificial Vision
Published on: February 11, 2014
Comparison of the Variational Bayes Linear Regression Visual Field Test Algorithms and the Swedish Interactive
Kazunori Hirasawa1, Yuki Sanada2, Ryohei Komori2
1Department of Ophthalmology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan.
Purpose:
To compare 10-2 visual field (VF) test results obtained with the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) Standard and those obtained with a family of variational Bayes linear regression (VBLR) VF algorithms-VBLR-VF (standard program), VBLR-VF Fast, and VBLR-VF Fast+-in patients with glaucoma.
Design:
Multicenter prospective observational cohort study.
Participants:
One eye from each of 133 patients with glaucoma.
Methods:
Among the 133 patients, 43 underwent VBLR-VF and the SITA-Standard, 45 underwent VBLR-VF Fast and the SITA-Standard, and 45 underwent VBLR-VF Fast+ and the SITA-Standard, all of which were performed with the 10-2 test program on the same day. Each test pair was repeated within 6 months in reverse order.
Main Outcome Measures:
The mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), pointwise VF sensitivity, test-retest repeatability (root mean square error [RMSE]), and test duration were compared between the SITA-Standard and each VBLR-VF algorithm.
Results:
There was no significant difference in MD between the SITA-Standard and VBLR-VF. In contrast, the MD values obtained with VBLR-VF Fast and Fast+ were significantly greater than those obtained with the SITA-Standard by 0.61 to 0.81 dB (P < 0.01). Pattern standard deviation with the VBLR-VF method was 0.62 dB greater than that with the SITA-Standard in the second test (P < 0.01), whereas there was no significant difference in the first test. No significant differences in PSD were detected between VBLR-VF Fast or Fast+ and the SITA-Standard. The pointwise VF sensitivities with VBLR-VF were 0.8 to 0.9 dB lower than those with the SITA-Standard (P < 0.01), whereas 0.2 dB higher values were observed with VBLR-VF Fast and Fast+ (P < 0.05). The RMSE did not significantly differ between any of the VBLR-VF algorithms and the SITA-Standard. Test durations with VBLR-VF, VBLR-VF Fast, and VBLR-VF Fast+ at the first visit were significantly shorter than those with the SITA-Standard by 12.2%, 37.8%, and 46.3%, respectively, and were further reduced at the second visit by 10.5%, 26.0%, and 26.3%, respectively (all P < 0.01).
Conclusions:
All the VBLR-VF algorithms substantially reduced the test duration while maintaining repeatability. Significant or nonsignificant minor differences in 10-2 VF sensitivity were observed between the SITA-Standard and the VBLR-VF algorithms.
Financial Disclosure(S):
Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Expected Frequencies in Goodness-of-Fit Tests
Calculating and Interpreting the Linear Correlation Coefficient
Wald-Wolfowitz Runs Test I
The test works...
Wald-Wolfowitz Runs Test II
For binary data, runs are identified using symbols such as + and −, or equivalently, 1s and 0s. In...
Statistical Methods to Analyze Parametric Data: Student t-Test and Goodness-of-Fit Test
The Student's t-test is a statistical test that examines if there is a statistically significant difference between the means of two groups. This test is instrumental when dealing with data...
Friedman Two-way Analysis of Variance by Ranks

