CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT04714424RTS1Updated Aug 28, 2024

Comparing Vision Tests in a Virtual Reality Headset to Existing Analogues

An observational study in Ptosis, Macular Degeneration and Ametropia, sponsored by Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-08-28.

Sponsored by Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Other
Time perspective
Cross-sectional
Enrollment
84
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The purpose of this study is to compare the results of vision tests that are algorithmically derived and delivered through a virtual reality headset with those delivered through the existing technology standards (eg. Humphrey for field tests). Tests that the researchers will be conducting include vision field perimetry, Amsler, acuity chart, contrast- sensitivity and currently used office tests.

Read the detailed description

Virtual reality (VR) constructs a 3-D reality right in a headset and the researchers are studying with what degree of accuracy it can be use to recreate vision tests that are used by eye doctors to screen and diagnose patients. VR provides advantages that could be used to improve eye care once the technology is tested and compared to the currently used vision tests - such as limiting the costs, duration and tedium associated with existing forms of vision screening tests. By doing so, the researchers hope to expand access to eye care by lowering the cost burden associated with vision tests. In this study, the research team will have subjects go through the VR versions of the test that are used in practice, and analyze their results in comparison to one another. After informed consent is obtained, the research team will collect subject demographic information (date of birth, gender, ethnicity, race) and clinically relevant medical history. Afterward, the research team will proceed to the virtual reality tests: vision field perimetry, Amsler, Snellen chart, contrast- sensitivity and currently used office tests. The participants will undergo all the tests, VR and non-VR, which will be delivered in a randomized order. The entire sequence will last 30 minutes to one hour for a single test. The VR component will last about 5 minutes, this being the only addition to the scheduled vision tests. The sequence of VR / non VR testing will be randomized. Based on the previous studies that compared Humphrey MATRIX visual field and Swedish Interactive algorithm, the effect size is determined to be at least 30 subjects, and the goal is to reach N=1,000 participants.

02

Conditions studied

  • Ptosis
  • Macular Degeneration
  • Ametropia

Keywords

  • Vision screening
  • Virtual reality
  • Field test
  • Visual acuity
  • Contrast sensitivity
03

In context

Macular Degeneration

1,474 studies on the registry are indexed under Macular Degeneration; 206 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 84 is below the median of 106 across 421 observational studies indexed under Macular Degeneration.

Browse Macular Degeneration studies →

Lead sponsor

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai is the lead sponsor of 764 studies on the registry; 181 are open to participants now.

Of its 121 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 82 (68%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

Patients will be recruited from New York Eye and Ear Infirmary.

Inclusion criteria

  • Male and female patients of any race who are at least 18 years of age and can understand and provide verbal and written informed consent are eligible for this study.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients who have had intraocular surgery less than six months ago,
  • Potential contraindication for visual field test that include anxiety disorder, pregnancy, seizure disorder,cardiac pacemaker or another implantable device, severe vertigo or balance issues.
05

Study design

Observational model
Other
Time perspective
Cross-sectional
Enrollment
84 participants (actual)
Target follow-up
6 Years
Patient registry
Yes

Groups and cohorts

  • Participants undergoing vision exams

    Device: Virtual Reality Headset

Interventions

  • DeviceVirtual Reality Headset

    Virtual reality (VR) - a 3-D reality right in a headset

    Also known as: Vive Pro

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Vision Field Perimetry

    Vision field perimetry will me measured using Humphrey Vision Field Analyzer and a VR equivalent software.

    Time frame: Day 1

  2. Acuity

    Acuity will be measured using Tumbling E and LogMAR tests and a VR version of those tests.

    Time frame: Day 1

  3. Contrast

    Contrast sensitivity will be measured using the Pelli-Robson test and a VR version of the test.

    Time frame: Day 1

  4. Color vision

    Color vision will be measured by Ishihara plates and a VR version of the test.

    Time frame: Day 1

Secondary outcomes

  1. Patient Satisfaction Survey

    The survey consists of Likert scale questions to understand the patient's experience with the VR and analogues. The scale is evaluated from 1 to 5, with 1 meaning "very poor" and 5 meaning "very good". Score for each section (HVFA and VR) is 3 to 15. Total scale is 6 to 30, with higher score indicating more satisfaction.

    Time frame: Day 1

07

Study locations

1 site
  • New York Eye & Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai
    New York, New York 10003, United States
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Heijl A, Patella VM, Chong LX, Iwase A, Leung CK, Tuulonen A, Lee GC, Callan T, Bengtsson B. A New SITA Perimetric Threshold Testing Algorithm: Construction and a Multicenter Clinical Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019 Feb;198:154-165. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2018.10.010. Epub 2018 Oct 16. PubMed 30336129 ↗
  • Kimura T, Matsumoto C, Nomoto H. Comparison of head-mounted perimeter (imo(R)) and Humphrey Field Analyzer. Clin Ophthalmol. 2019 Mar 14;13:501-513. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S190995. eCollection 2019. PubMed 30936681 ↗
  • Lowry EA, Hou J, Hennein L, Chang RT, Lin S, Keenan J, Wang SK, Ianchulev S, Pasquale LR, Han Y. Comparison of Peristat Online Perimetry with the Humphrey Perimetry in a Clinic-Based Setting. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2016 Jul 19;5(4):4. doi: 10.1167/tvst.5.4.4. eCollection 2016 Jul. PubMed 27486554 ↗
  • Phu J, Khuu SK, Yapp M, Assaad N, Hennessy MP, Kalloniatis M. The value of visual field testing in the era of advanced imaging: clinical and psychophysical perspectives. Clin Exp Optom. 2017 Jul;100(4):313-332. doi: 10.1111/cxo.12551. Epub 2017 Jun 22. PubMed 28640951 ↗
  • Prema R, George R, Hemamalini A, Sathyamangalam Ve R, Baskaran M, Vijaya L. Comparison of Humphrey MATRIX and Swedish interactive threshold algorithm standard strategy in detecting early glaucomatous visual field loss. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2009 May-Jun;57(3):207-11. doi: 10.4103/0301-4738.49395. PubMed 19384015 ↗
  • Scarfe P, Glennerster A. Using high-fidelity virtual reality to study perception in freely moving observers. J Vis. 2015;15(9):3. doi: 10.1167/15.9.3. PubMed 26161632 ↗
  • Sharma AK, Goldberg I, Graham SL, Mohsin M. Comparison of the Humphrey swedish interactive thresholding algorithm (SITA) and full threshold strategies. J Glaucoma. 2000 Feb;9(1):20-7. doi: 10.1097/00061198-200002000-00005. PubMed 10708227 ↗
  • Barbour KE, Helmick CG, Boring M, Brady TJ. Vital Signs: Prevalence of Doctor-Diagnosed Arthritis and Arthritis-Attributable Activity Limitation - United States, 2013-2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017 Mar 10;66(9):246-253. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6609e1. PubMed 28278145 ↗
  • Beard C. Muller's superior tarsal muscle: anatomy, physiology, and clinical significance. Ann Plast Surg. 1985 Apr;14(4):324-33. doi: 10.1097/00000637-198504000-00005. PubMed 3994278 ↗
  • Collin JR, Beard C, Wood I. Experimental and clinical data on the insertion of the levator palpebrae superioris muscle. Am J Ophthalmol. 1978 Jun;85(6):792-801. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9394(14)78107-3. PubMed 98045 ↗
  • Cosh S, Carriere I, Daien V, Tzourio C, Delcourt C, Helmer C. Sensory loss and suicide ideation in older adults: findings from the Three-City cohort study. Int Psychogeriatr. 2019 Jan;31(1):139-145. doi: 10.1017/S104161021800056X. Epub 2018 May 25. PubMed 29798742 ↗
  • DeBuc DC. The Role of Retinal Imaging and Portable Screening Devices in Tele-ophthalmology Applications for Diabetic Retinopathy Management. Curr Diab Rep. 2016 Dec;16(12):132. doi: 10.1007/s11892-016-0827-2. PubMed 27841014 ↗
  • Lee CS, Morris A, Van Gelder RN, Lee AY. Evaluating Access to Eye Care in the Contiguous United States by Calculated Driving Time in the United States Medicare Population. Ophthalmology. 2016 Dec;123(12):2456-2461. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.08.015. Epub 2016 Sep 12. PubMed 27633646 ↗
  • Goh RLZ, Kong YXG, McAlinden C, Liu J, Crowston JG, Skalicky SE. Objective Assessment of Activity Limitation in Glaucoma with Smartphone Virtual Reality Goggles: A Pilot Study. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2018 Jan 23;7(1):10. doi: 10.1167/tvst.7.1.10. eCollection 2018 Jan. PubMed 29372112 ↗
  • Hootman JM, Helmick CG, Barbour KE, Theis KA, Boring MA. Updated Projected Prevalence of Self-Reported Doctor-Diagnosed Arthritis and Arthritis-Attributable Activity Limitation Among US Adults, 2015-2040. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Jul;68(7):1582-7. doi: 10.1002/art.39692. PubMed 27015600 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — All of the individual participant data collected during the trial, after deidentification.

Supporting information: Study protocol, Sap, Icf, Csr, Analytic code

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Aug 28, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04714424
Lead sponsor
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Responsible party
James Chelnis (Assistant Clinical Professor, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai) — Principal investigator
First posted
Jan 19, 2021
Start date
Jan 13, 2020
Primary completion
Oct 24, 2022
Completion
Oct 24, 2022
Last update
Aug 28, 2024

Study contacts

James Chelnis, MD
principal investigator · New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Aug 2024. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion