Evaluation of Peripheral Visual Perception Using a Cubic Neuro-Visual Functional Screening Device
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63939/7ky4r309Keywords:
Peripheral Visual Perception, Cubic Neuro-Visual Functional Screening Device, Central focus, Visual Integration, Clinical ScreeningAbstract
Background: Standard visual acuity tests prioritize central spatial resolution but consistently fail to identify functional peripheral visual deficits that impact spatial orientation and mobility. This cross-sectional observational study introduces and validates a novel Cubic Neuro-Visual Functional Screening Device designed to assess peripheral visual perception and central-peripheral visual integration dynamically. Methods: One hundred and fifty participants aged 5–60 years were enrolled across five clinical cohorts: healthy controls (n=50), amblyopia (n=30), glaucoma (n=35), stroke-related peripheral field defects (n=20), and peripheral perception disturbance with normal visual acuity (n=15). The primary outcome was peripheral stimulus recognition response time, measured via a digital precision chronometer while the patient maintained central fixation, monitored by a micro-camera. Results: Healthy controls achieved a mean response time of 0.78 ± 0.12 s, demonstrating significantly faster processing compared to an aggregate pathological group mean of 1.38 ± 0.25 s (p < 0.05). A crucial clinical finding emerged in patients with normal central visual acuity (6/6) but functional disturbances, who exhibited significant peripheral processing delays (1.20 ± 0.15 s). Furthermore, distinct behavioral compensatory mechanisms, including micro-saccades and head tilting, were systematically observed in pathological cohorts. Gender did not significantly influence response times. Conclusions: The cubic screening device demonstrates substantial clinical potential in differentiating healthy from pathological peripheral visual processing. The findings highlight a critical diagnostic gap in relying solely on Snellen acuity, emphasizing the necessity for accessible, rapid functional peripheral assessment tools in routine clinical and neuro-visual rehabilitation settings.
Downloads
References
1. Bowers, A. R. (2016). "Driving with a visual field defect," Clinical and Experimental Optometry, 99(5), 406-415.
2. Wood, J. M., Chaparro, A., & Hickko, A. (2019). "The effect of visual field loss on driving performance," Journal of Vision, 19(5), 14.
3. Kanjee, R., & Yucel, Y. H. (2017). "Vision-related quality of life in patients with glaucoma," Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology, 52(4), 382-388.
4. Johnson, C. A., Wall, M., & Thompson, H. S. (2011). "A history of perimetry and visual field testing," Optometry and Vision Science, 88(1), E8-E15.
5. Jampel, H. D., & Singh, K. (2012). "Glaucoma and the assessment of functional vision," Ophthalmology, 119(1), 1-2.
6. Phu, J., Khuu, S. K., & Kalloniatis, M. (2017). "The influence of attention and decision-making on visual field testing," Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 37(6), 693-705.
7. Anderson, A. J., & Vingrys, A. J. (2011). "Innovations in perimetry," Clinical and Experimental Optometry, 94(3), 253-255.
8. Tarita-Nistor, L., et al. (2014). "Fixation stability and reading speed in patients with newly diagnosed macular degeneration," Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 55(11), 7401-7407.
9. Whitney, D., & Levi, D. M. (2011). "Visual crowding: a fundamental limit on conscious perception and object recognition," Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(4), 160-168.
10. Edwards, M. H., & Good, G. W. (2015). "The Role of Peripheral Vision in Functional Mobility and Fall Risk," Journal of Neuro-Ophthalmology, 35(2), 142-149.
11. Owsley, C., & McGwin, G. (2010). "Vision and driving," Vision Research, 50(23), 2359-2367.
12. Rubin, G. S., et al. (2014). "A comprehensive assessment of visual impairment in a population of older Americans," Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 55(10), 6520-6528.
13. Rucker, J. C., & Phillips, P. H. (2018). "Efferent and afferent visual pathways in stroke," Continuum (Minneap Minn), 24(2), 430-449.
14. Rowe, F. J. (2017). "Visual fields via the visual pathway," Neurology and Vision Research, 12(4), 112-124.
15. Vingrys, A. J., Healey, P. R., & Liew, S. (2016). "Validation of a tablet app for objective assessment of visual fields," Translational Vision Science & Technology, 5(4), 4.
16. Wong K-A, Ang BCH, Gunasekeran DV, Husain R, Boon J, Vikneson K, et al. Remote Perimetry in a Virtual Reality Metaverse Environment for Out-of-Hospital Functional Eye Screening Compared Against the Gold Standard Humphrey Visual Fields Perimeter: Proof-of-Concept Pilot Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2023;25. https://doi.org/10.2196/45044.
17. Wong K-A, Ang BCH, Gunasekeran DV, Husain R, Boon J, Vikneson K, et al. Remote Perimetry in a Virtual Reality Metaverse Environment for Out-of-Hospital Functional Eye Screening Compared Against the Gold Standard Humphrey Visual Fields Perimeter: Proof-of-Concept Pilot Study (Preprint) 2022. https://doi.org/10.2196/preprints.45044.
18. Sethi S, Pocari G. Exploring Head-Mounted Virtual Visual Fields for Glaucoma: How do They Stack Up Against Humphrey Tests? TNOA Journal of Ophthalmic Science and Research 2024;62:301–10. https://doi.org/10.4103/tjosr.tjosr_85_24.
19. Terracciano R, Mascolo A, Venturo L, Guidi F, Vaira M, Eandi CM, et al. Kinetic Perimetry on Virtual Reality Headset 2022. https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.21383214.
20. Zeppieri M, Gagliano C, Cappellani F, Visalli F, D’Esposito F, Avitabile A, et al. Clinical Assessment of a Virtual Reality Perimeter Versus the Humphrey Field Analyzer: Comparative Reliability, Usability, and Prospective Applications. Vision 2025;9:86–86. https://doi.org/10.3390/vision9040086.
21. Ge C, Zhu Z, Kashiwagi K, Toyoura M, Fujishiro I, Go K, et al. ADAPT-VF: Rapid VR Perimetry via Adaptive Spatial Partitioning — A Controlled Comparative Study (Preprint) 2026. https://doi.org/10.2196/preprints.94991.
22. Terracciano R, Mascolo A, Venturo L, Guidi F, Vaira M, Eandi CM, et al. Kinetic Perimetry on Virtual Reality Headset 2022. https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.21383214.v1.
23. Labkovich M, Warburton A, Cheng C, Okome O, Navarro V, Serafini RA, et al. Virtual Reality Enables Rapid and Multi-Faceted Vision Screening in a Pilot Study. Journal of Clinical & Translational Ophthalmology 2026;4:8–8. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcto4010008.
24. Raghavan V. Assessing the Accuracy and Clinical Potential of Virtual Reality-Based Visual Field Perimetry. PreprintsOrg 2026. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202603.0487.v1.
25. Vera J, Glazier AN, Dunbar MT, Ripkin D, Nafey M. Evaluating the Clinical Validity of Commercially Available Virtual Reality Headsets for Visual Field Testing: A Systematic Review. Vision 2025;9:80–80. https://doi.org/10.3390/vision9040080.
26. Cedrún-Sánchez JE, Bernárdez-Vilaboa R, Sánchez-Alamillos L, Medina-Galdeano M, Otero-Currás C, Povedano-Montero FJ. Relationship Between Humphrey Automated Perimetry and Virtual Reality-Based Perimetry: A Constant dB Offset and Normative Data. Applied Sciences 2026;16:1351–1351. https://doi.org/10.3390/app16031351.
27. Griffin J, Slagle G, Vu TA, Eis A, Sponsel WE. Prospective Comparison of VisuALL Virtual Reality Perimetry and Humphrey Automated Perimetry in Glaucoma. JOURNAL OF CURRENT GLAUCOMA PRACTICE 2024;18:4–9. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10078-1434.
28. Labkovich M, Warburton A, Cheng CHK, Okome O, Navarro V, Serafini RA, et al. Virtual Reality Enables Rapid and Multi-Faceted Retinal Function Screening. Research Square 2022. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2011868/v1.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Progressive Medical Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
