Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 8, 2026
Motion-Acuity Test for Visual Field Acuity Measurement with Motion-Defined Shapes
Published on: February 23, 2024
Evaluation of a virtual reality-based perimetry device for visual field testing: comparison with the Humphrey visual
Khaldon Abbas1, Michael Sibulo2, Abdullah Al-Ani3
1Department of Ophthalmology, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON.
Objective:
Visual field testing is essential for monitoring field defects, but traditional devices are bulky and resource intensive. This study evaluated the agreement and usability of the RetinaLogik RVF100 virtual reality perimetry device compared with the Humphrey visual field analyzer (HVF) among Filipino adults.
Design:
A comparative cross-sectional study.
Participants:
Participants were Filipino adults presenting to 2 major eye centres in the Philippines from January to October 2024. A total of 46 participants (76 eyes) were included.
Methods:
Participants were categorized as normal, glaucoma, or other diagnoses (e.g., optic neuritis, ocular hypertension). Both devices tested visual fields using the 30-2 grid, measuring mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), fixation losses (FL), false positives (FP), false negatives, and test duration. Agreement was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis and Pearson correlation. Pointwise analyses with heatmap visualizations were also used. Usability was evaluated using a postexamination Likert-scale questionnaire.
Results:
RVF100 demonstrated strong agreement with HVF (MD: r = 0.979, PSD: r = 0.837; p < .0001). The Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean difference in sensitivity of -1.06 decibels (dB) (95% CI: -4.2 to 2 dB). RVF100 had shorter test durations (5.41 vs 6.96 min; p < 0.001), fewer FL (1.79% vs 5.59%; p < 0.001), and slightly higher FP rates (3.44% vs 1.92%; p < 0.001). Usability results showed 90% preferred RVF100 over HVF for comfort (86.4%) and engagement (95.3%).
Conclusions:
RVF100 is a comparable alternative to HVF, offering comparable accuracy with improved patient comfort. Further research is warranted to assess its efficacy in detecting early and advanced disease stages and in broader populations.
