Investigating the discrepancy between MAIA and MP-1 microperimetry results.

Abstract

Purpose: Previous work has suggested that sensitivities measured on the iCare MAIA and Nidek MP-1 microperimeters differ systematically, although it is unclear whether one or both devices are inaccurate. Here, we assess the discrepancy between these two instruments as well as with a rigorous reference standard.

Methods: Fifteen healthy participants underwent visual field testing on the MAIA and MP-1 microperimeters. Results were compared to a reference measure of increment thresholds on a laboratory-based, calibrated computer monitor system using the same background luminance and target size. Discrepancies were assessed as a function of eccentricity along the vertical meridian. Differences in decibels (dB) due to differences in the maximum stimulus luminance between devices were accounted for mathematically.

Results: The mean sensitivity measured with the MAIA was <1 dB lower than laboratory-based measures, which was statistically significant but of limited clinical importance. In contrast, the mean sensitivity measured with the MP-1 was >8 dB lower than the laboratory measures. The difference was greater for an eccentric superior retinal location, in contrast to what would be predicted if the discrepancy was due to a ceiling effect caused by the MP-1's limited dynamic range.

Conclusions: While MAIA measurements showed low bias compared with our rigorously determined reference standard, the MP-1 showed large discrepancies that could not be explained purely by the limited dynamic range of the instrument. MAIA and MP-1 sensitivity values cannot be compared directly, and caution is advised when assessing absolute sensitivities or eccentricity effects in the extensive MP-1 literature.