December 1, 2017
Posted by wordae on Saturday, December 2, 2017 in Uncategorized.
Note: This post was previously posted as an edit to the Updates page and was changed to a post on Dec. 2.
During the past two previous weeks, our main goals were to better understand the physics and mechanics of our device and to determine and assess contraindications that may affect the efficacy of our visual field test. To understand the science behind our device, each member of our team read various publications and literature.
| Group Member | Book | Summary |
| Judy | “Visual Fields: Examination and Interpretation” by Thomas J. Walsh | This book detailed techniques in visual field testing, such as the Amsler Grid and the Confrontation Technique, and discussed various types of visual field defects. |
| Khairah | “Visual Field Digest” by Lyn Racette | This book mostly focuses on understanding the Octopus perimeter, one of the two most common perimeters today. It also explores some typical test patterns for glaucoma, retinopathies, and neurological visual field loss. |
| Anna | “Eye Essentials” by Robert Cubbige | The book is mainly designed for physicians in order to provide instruction on how to give the test, interpret test abnormalities, and analyze the resultant data collected from the visual field device. |
| Sophie | “Visual Fields via the Visual Pathway” by Fiona Rowe. | This book outlines the biological reasons for vision loss. It details pupil abnormalities, changes in visual perception and visual acuity for damage in each part of the visual field. |
To address our second goal, we have begun conducting a literature review on the disorders and pharmaceuticals that have the potential to affect the outcome of our visual field test. Because our test analyzes pupil changes in response to retinal cell activation by light at different wavelengths, the major contraindications that we studied were cataracts and color blindness. Cataracts cloud the lens, reducing the amount of light that penetrates through the pupil, which could potentially cause a reduction in a cataract patient’s pupillary light response, serving as a false positive (Heon et al, “The γ-Crystallins and Human Cataracts: A Puzzle Made Clearer” AJHG, 2000). Color blindness affects the distribution and makeup of cone cells, so that light at specific wavelengths may not activate such cells and cause a pupillary response (Maureen et al, “Spectral Tuning of Pigments Underlying Red-Green Color Vision” Science, 1991). Researching such contraindications will have large implications for the commercial viability of our project. If it is determined that our visual field test maintains its accuracy in patients with conditions such as color blindness, the marketability of our product will increase due to its potential to serve a broader market. Cataracts, for example, affect up to 50% of the United States population over age 65 (Hodge et al, “Risk Factors for Age-Related Cataracts” Epidemiologic Reviews, 1995).