Purpose: Kinetic programs in four automated perimeters were evaluated and compared for their clinical usefulness using four simulated visual field (VF) patterns.
Methods: Using the results of conventional Goldmann manual kinetic perimetry (MKP), simulated fields with concentric contraction, a temporal residual island only, a small central island with a temporal island, and a ring scotoma were created. Four kinetic programs, Humphrey 750i Kinetic Test (Humphrey), OCULUS Twinfield 2 Kinetic Perimetry (OCULUS), OCTOPUS 900 Goldmann Kinetic Perimetry (OCTOPUS GKP), and Kowa AP-7000 Isopter (Kowa) were tested by the 4 simulated defect patterns using stimuli of V/4e, I/4e, I/3e, I/2e, and I/1e at speeds of 3 and 5°/s.
Results: Except Humphrey, OCULUS, OCTOPUS GKP, and Kowa could obtain isopters nearly comparable to those of Goldmann MKP. However, their results were considerably influenced by the examiner's skill. Besides, Humphrey had restrictions on target presentation, and OCULUS and Kowa had problems in isopter drawing and in filling in the scotoma. OCTOPUS GKP was the only method that could correctly detect and depict all four defect patterns. It also had relatively shorter test durations among the three methods excluding Humphrey, which did not have a built-in function for test duration measurement. The perimeters' test ranges for the periphery were 90° for Humphrey, OCULUS, and OCTOPUS GKP, and 80° for Kowa.
Conclusion: To assess kinetic fields with various defect patterns, OCTOPUS GKP seems to be the most useful method.
Keywords: Automated kinetic perimetry; Humphrey 750i Kinetic Test; Kowa AP-7000 Isopter; OCTOPUS 900 Goldmann Kinetic Perimetry; OCULUS Twinfield 2 Kinetic Perimetry.