Comparison of central and peripheral visual field properties in the Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial (ONTT)

John L Keltner, C. A. Johnson, J. O. Spurr, R. W. Beck

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review


Purpose. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of peripheral kinetic visual field testing and central static perimetry on patients enrolled in the Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial (ONTT) to determine: (1) whether the loss and recovery of visual field sensitivity in the far periphery was different from that observed in the central visual field and (2) whether the peripheral visual field provided any additional information that was not available in the central visual field results. Methods. Both affected and fellow eyes of 448 optic neuritis patients in the ONTT were evaluated for eleven visits over the first three years of the study. Central static visual field tests were performed with Program 30-2 on the Humphrey Field Analyzer, and peripheral kinetic testing consisted of plotting the II/4e and I/3e isopters on the Goldmann perimeter. Both test procedures were conducted according to the ONTT protocols, and quality control assessments were performed on all of the visual fields. Results. For both affected and fellow eyes at all eleven visits, there were a greater number of abnormal visual fields in the central static perimetry results than in the peripheral kinetic data. At baseline, 97.1% of affected eyes had an abnormal Mean Deviation on central static testing, whereas only about 67-70% had abnormal peripheral kinetic visual fields. For year 1 and beyond, approximately 25-30% of affected eyes had abnormal Mean Deviations, whereas only 10-15% of peripheral kinetic fields were abnormal. Similar relationships were observed for the fellow eye. There were only a small number of eyes with abnormal peripheral visual fields and normal central visual fields. Conclusions. The central visual field shows greater abnormalities than the peripheral visual field in optic neuritis. The periphery may recover slightly faster than the central field. Evaluation of the far peripheral visual field does not appear to add any information that is not available from the central visual field results in optic neuritis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalInvestigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science
Issue number3
StatePublished - Feb 15 1996

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology


Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of central and peripheral visual field properties in the Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial (ONTT)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this