PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 19, 2026Graefe s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology0 citationsOpen Access

A comparative analysis of an AI-assisted virtual reality platform with technician-based examination for visual field, visual acuity, and color vision in neuro-ophthalmology

PRPotyra R. RosaATAmanda TranHAHenar Albertos-Arranz

Key Points

  • This study aims to compare the effectiveness of an AI-assisted virtual reality platform with technician-based examinations in assessing visual acuity, color vision, and visual field.
  • Cross-sectional study design including 59 adult patients
  • Used Snellen chart, Ishihara test, and SITA or AVA Fast strategy for assessments
  • Collected best corrected visual acuity, color vision results, mean deviation, and pattern standard deviation
  • Significant positive correlations found between VRP and traditional exams for BCVA (r = .641) and CV (r = .824)
  • Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement for BCVA and CV
  • MD and PSD of VRP significantly correlated with standard Humphrey Visual Field exam (MD: r = .91; PSD: r = .88)
  • VRP reduced test duration to 124.31 seconds from 256.8 seconds for standard exams

Abstract

Abstract Purpose This study aimed to compare the AI-assisted Virtual Reality Platform (VRP) with technician-assisted exams for assessing visual acuity, color vision (CV), and visual field (VF) in a neuro-ophthalmology clinic. Methods A comparative, cross-sectional study including 59 adult patients was performed in the neuro-ophthalmology clinic at Bascom Palmer Eye Institute. The Snellen chart for visual acuity, Ishihara testing, and the SITA or AVA Fast strategy for VF testing were used in both the VRP and technician-based examinations. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), CV results, mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), and reliability indices were collected. Results The study included 118 eyes with a mean age of 47.2 ± 18.8 (71.19% female). Significant positive correlations were found between the VRP and technician-based examination for BCVA ( r = .641, P <.001) and CV ( r = .824, P <.001). Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement between VRP and the traditional exams for BCVA (mean bias 0.09 ± 0.25, limits of agreement (LOA): 0.58 to -0.40) and CV (mean bias 0.07 ± 0.11. LOA: 0.29 to -0.16). The MD and PSD of the VRP were significantly correlated with the standard Humphrey Visual Field (HVF) exam (MD: r = .91, P <.001; PSD: r = .88, P <.001). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a mean bias of -0.71 ± 2.81 for MD and − 0.90 ± 2.08 for PSD. The VRP reduced test duration (124.31 ± 0.35 s) compared to the standard exam (256.8 ± 7.1 s, P <.0001). Conclusions The VisuALL VRP, a compact portable device, effectively provides results comparable to technician-based assessments in neuro-ophthalmological patients while reducing test duration and improving clinical workflow.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Rosa et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6996a768ecb39a600b3ed12ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-026-07148-w
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Esterman Visual Field Testing Using a Virtual Reality Headset in Glaucoma2024 · 7 citations
  2. 2A System for the Measurement of the Subjective Visual Vertical using a Virtual Reality Device2018 · 23 citations
  3. 3Comparison of Three Visual Field Tests in Children: Frequency Doubling Test, 24-2 and 30-2 SITA Perimetry2016 · 12 citations
  4. 4Implementation of virtual reality in healthcare: a scoping review on the implementation process of virtual reality in various healthcare settings2023 · 295 citations
  5. 5A Clinical Comparison of Visual Field Testing With a New Automated Perimeter, the Humphrey Field Analyzer, and the Goldmann Perimeter1985 · 144 citations