Aims To clarify the anatomical relation between the optic disc and temporal raphe and to examine how these are related to test points in the 10-2 visual field test pattern.
Subjects and methods For 22 eyes of volunteers with normal vision (+0.75 D spherical equivalent 7.88 D), a volume scan was used to obtain en-face images from a plane fitted to the inner limiting membrane using optical coherence tomography (OCT). The clearest en-face retinal nerve fibre (RNF) image was chosen for each subject and superimposed on fundus photographs using blood vessels for alignment. Individual landmarks (disc, fovea and visual field blind spot) were then used to superimpose the Humphrey Field Analyzer 10-2 visual field on the OCT image to compare with the RNF image.
Results The average disc–fovea–raphe angle was 169.4°±3.2°. Both the disc and temporal raphe were located above the horizontal midline (ie, were inferior in visual field space). For the 10-2 test pattern superimposed on the OCT image, in 54.5% of eyes, the temporal inferior test points adjacent to the horizontal midline mapped to the anatomical inferior hemifield. In 22.7% of eyes, nasal inferior test points adjacent to the horizontal midline mapped to the anatomical inferior hemifield. This mapping is opposite to typically assumed.
Conclusion The position of the disc and raphe affects the mapping between structure and function with respect to superior and inferior hemifields. Individual differences in the position of the temporal raphe should be considered when mapping between structure and function for the 10-2 test pattern.
- Field of vision
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors FT was responsible for experimental data collection and analysis, writing the manuscript, and finalising the manuscript upon suggestions and advice from the participating authors. CM was responsible for the research design, contributed to the data analysis and revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content. AM assisted with manuscript writing and contributed important intellectual content. SO and SH contributed to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the work by making it appropriately investigated. YS provided critical feedback on the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Competing interests Writing of the manuscript was conducted while FT was a visiting academic at the University of Melbourne.
Ethics approval Kinki University Ethics Committee.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.