Perimetry is an important technique for managing a range of visual system disorders. In order for a perimetry test to be accurate, it is essential that patients keep their eyes fixed on a central target. This means that visual field testing in patients with highly unstable fixation (e.g., nystagmus) might be inaccurate. To investigate this, we have built our own visual field instrument that uses a high-speed eye tracker and gaze‑contingent examination to compensate for unstable eye movements. We compared the test-retest variability of our visual field instrument against conventional methods in normally-sighted observers and demonstrated that variability is unaffected by gaze-contingency, providing proof-of-concept for the instrument’s use.

Experiment: Participants performed visual field examinations with a novel perimetry method involving continuous gaze-contingent stimulus presentation, in which stimulus position is updated prior to and during stimulus presentation. This was compared against conventional methods of perimetry, namely, partial gaze-contingent perimetry and no gaze-contingent perimetry. Partial gaze-contingency is a method in which stimulus presentation is updated prior to, but not during stimulus presentation (analogous to the method used by microperimeters). No gaze-contingency is a method in which stimulus presentation is not updated at all throughout a visual field examination (analogous to the method used by standard automated perimeters).