Elsevier

Ophthalmology

Volume 102, Issue 1, January 1995, Pages 27-32
Ophthalmology

Automated Perimetry and Malingerers: Can the Humphrey Be Outavitted?

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(95)31059-7Get rights and content

Background: Through detailed strategies and sophisticated analysis, the Humphrey automated visual field analyzer attempts to indicate if visual field loss is artefactual. Can these measures be outwitted by malingerers?

Methods: The author investigated the ease with which motivated individuals (such as are malingerers) could simulate visual field defects consistent with organic neurologic disease on the Humphrey visual field analyzer. Visual field test results were analyzed for characteristic features and compared with visual field tests from patients with documented pituitary tumors.

Results: Volunteers, given only broad suggestions as to the visual field they were to simulate, produced consistent, convincing, neurologic-type field defects, according to textbook descriptions of such fields. These plotted fields were only distinguishable from genuine pituitary tumor Humphrey field tests, in that they more convincingly fitted the classic descriptions of visual fields seen with chiasmal compression.

Conclusions: The author concludes that single routine Humphrey visual field tests do not show malingerers. An incidental finding of this study was the extent to which Humphrey visual fields from patients with genuine neurologic disease contain field defects with characteristics different from those of the (kinetic) visual field test appearances described in the textbooks.

References (6)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (27)

  • Functional vision disorders in adults: a paradigm and nomenclature shift for ophthalmology

    2022, Survey of Ophthalmology
    Citation Excerpt :

    With binocular testing, the “good” eye can compensate for the defect in the “bad” eye; however, patients with FVD may exhibit a persistent defect in the pattern of the monocular field defect on binocular testing (Fig. 4) [40]. Loss of the blind spot in binocular VFs in a patient with monocular blindness suggest FND [47]. Automated perimetry: Though some Goldmann manual perimetry findings suggestive of FND can be elicited on automated kinetic perimetry, the result of a constricted VF on automated monocular static perimetry cannot distinguish between a patient with ophthalmic disease and a patient with FVD [40].

  • Functional (Nonorganic) Visual Loss

    2018, Liu, Volpe, and Galetta's Neuro-Ophthalmology: Diagnosis and Management
  • The ability of healthy volunteers to simulate a neurologic field defect on automated perimetry

    2014, Ophthalmology
    Citation Excerpt :

    This phenomenon was first described by Glovinsky et al,3 who demonstrated that it was easy for an ophthalmologist to create a quadrantic field defect by ignoring the initial stimulus presented by the perimeter in that quadrant. Stewart5 subsequently demonstrated that healthy volunteers were able to produce quadrantic defects that were “more neurologic” than patients with pituitary adenomas and there were no visual field criteria to differentiate from a true defect. In a similar but much smaller study compared with ours, Thompson et al6 asked 6 volunteers to simulate 6 different visual fields and repeat them on a Goldmann perimeter.

View all citing articles on Scopus

Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Ophthalmological Society of New Zealand, Blenheim, October 1992.

View full text