Scene and human face recognition in the central vision of patients with glaucoma

Alexia Roux-Sibilon, Floriane Rutgé, Florent Aptel, Arnaud Attye, Nathalie Guyader, Muriel Boucart, Christophe Chiquet, Carole Peyrin, Alexia Roux-Sibilon, Floriane Rutgé, Florent Aptel, Arnaud Attye, Nathalie Guyader, Muriel Boucart, Christophe Chiquet, Carole Peyrin

Abstract

Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) firstly mainly affects peripheral vision. Current behavioral studies support the idea that visual defects of patients with POAG extend into parts of the central visual field classified as normal by static automated perimetry analysis. This is particularly true for visual tasks involving processes of a higher level than mere detection. The purpose of this study was to assess visual abilities of POAG patients in central vision. Patients were assigned to two groups following a visual field examination (Humphrey 24-2 SITA-Standard test). Patients with both peripheral and central defects and patients with peripheral but no central defect, as well as age-matched controls, participated in the experiment. All participants had to perform two visual tasks where low-contrast stimuli were presented in the central 6° of the visual field. A categorization task of scene images and human face images assessed high-level visual recognition abilities. In contrast, a detection task using the same stimuli assessed low-level visual function. The difference in performance between detection and categorization revealed the cost of high-level visual processing. Compared to controls, patients with a central visual defect showed a deficit in both detection and categorization of all low-contrast images. This is consistent with the abnormal retinal sensitivity as assessed by perimetry. However, the deficit was greater for categorization than detection. Patients without a central defect showed similar performances to the controls concerning the detection and categorization of faces. However, while the detection of scene images was well-maintained, these patients showed a deficit in their categorization. This suggests that the simple loss of peripheral vision could be detrimental to scene recognition, even when the information is displayed in central vision. This study revealed subtle defects in the central visual field of POAG patients that cannot be predicted by static automated perimetry assessment using Humphrey 24-2 SITA-Standard test.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Individual mean deviation probability plots…
Fig 1. Individual mean deviation probability plots for patients with primary open-angle glaucoma.
A deficit in the central visual field was defined by at least one of the four central points (framed in central grey squares) presenting a probability of less than 2% of being normal. The tested eye is indicated for each patient (LE: left eye; RE: right eye). CD: Patients with central defect; NoCD: Patients with no central defect.
Fig 2
Fig 2
Examples of stimuli for (a) Scene and (b) Face experiments. Images were presented at two contrast levels (10% and 2.5%). For illustrative purposes, the contrast level of the images was slightly increased.
Fig 3
Fig 3
Schematic procedure for (a) Scene and (b) Face experiments. For each experiment, examples of two go trials and two no-go trials are represented by task (Detection and Categorization). Visual stimulation for go trials was the same for the two tasks. Images were presented in two contrast levels (10% and 2.5%). For illustrative purposes, the contrast level of the images was slightly increased.
Fig 4
Fig 4
Index of sensitivity (d’) in (a) the Scene experiment and (b) the Face experiment. Results are presented as a function of the group (primary open-angle glaucoma patients with central defect: CD; primary open-angle glaucoma patients without central defect: NoCD; and normally sighted age-matched participants: controls), and the task (detection vs. categorization). Error bars correspond to 95% confidence intervals.
Fig 5. Index of sensitivity (d’) in…
Fig 5. Index of sensitivity (d’) in the Scene experiment.
Results are presented as a function of the group (primary open-angle glaucoma patients with central defect: CD; primary open-angle glaucoma patients without central defect: NoCD; and normally sighted age-matched participants: controls), the task (detection vs. categorization), and the contrast level (10% vs. 2.5%). Error bars correspond to 95% confidence intervals.
Fig 6. Index of sensitivity (d’) in…
Fig 6. Index of sensitivity (d’) in the Face experiment.
Results are presented as a function of the group (primary open-angle glaucoma patients with central defect: CD; primary open-angle glaucoma patients without central defect: NoCD; and normally sighted age-matched participants: controls), the task (detection vs. categorization), and the contrast level (10% vs. 2.5%). Error bars correspond to 95% confidence intervals.

References

    1. Hood DC, Raza AS, de Moraes CG V, Liebmann JM, Ritch R. Glaucomatous damage of the macula. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2013. doi:
    1. Crabb DP, Smith ND, Glen FC, Burton R, Garway-Heath DF. How does glaucoma look?: Patient perception of visual field loss. Ophthalmology [Internet]. 2013;120(6):1120–6. Available from:
    1. Crabb DP. A view on glaucoma—Are we seeing it clearly? Eye. 2016;30(2):304–13. doi:
    1. Ramulu P. Glaucoma and disability: which tasks are affected, and at what stage of disease? Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009;20(2):92–98. doi:
    1. McKendrick AM, Badcock DR, Morgan WH. The detection of both global motion and global form is disrupted in glaucoma. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005. doi:
    1. Glen FC, Crabb DP, Smith ND, Burton R, Garway-Heath DF. Do patients with glaucoma have difficulty recognizing faces? Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53(7):3629–3637. doi:
    1. Lenoble Q, Lek JJ, Mckendrick AM. Visual object categorisation in people with glaucoma. doi:
    1. Kotecha A, O’Leary N, Melmoth D, Grant S, Crabb DP. The functional consequences of glaucoma for eye-hand coordination. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50(1):203–213. doi:
    1. Dive S, Rouland JF, Lenoble Q, Szaffarczyk S, McKendrick AM, Boucart M. Impact of Peripheral Field Loss on the Execution of Natural Actions. J Glaucoma. 2016;25(10):e889–e896. doi:
    1. Burton R, Smith ND, Crabb DP. Eye movements and reading in glaucoma: observations on patients with advanced visual field loss. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014;252(10):1621–30.
    1. Glen FC, Smith ND, Crabb DP. Saccadic eye movements and face recognition performance in patients with central glaucomatous visual field defects. Vision Res [Internet]. 2013;82:42–51. Available from:
    1. Smith ND, Glen FC, Crabb DP. Eye movements during visual search in patients with glaucoma. BMC Ophthalmol. 2012;12(1):45 doi:
    1. Crabb DP, Smith ND, Rauscher FG, Chisholm CM, Barbur JL, Edgar DF, et al. Exploring eye movements in patients with glaucoma when viewing a driving scene. PLoS One. 2010;5(3).
    1. Crabb DP, Smith ND, Zhu H. What’s on TV? Detecting age-related neurodegenerative eye disease using eye movement scanpaths. Front Aging Neurosci. 2014;6(NOV):1–10. doi:
    1. Smith ND, Crabb DP, Garway-Heath DF. An exploratory study of visual search performance in glaucoma. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2011;31(3):225–32. doi:
    1. Hawkins AS, Szlyk JP, Ardickas Z, Alexander KR, Wilensky JT. Comparison of contrast sensitivity, visual acuity, and Humphrey visual field testing in patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2003;12:134–138. doi:
    1. Kauffmann L, Ramanoël S, Guyader N, Chauvin A, Peyrin C. Spatial frequency processing in scene-selective cortical regions. Neuroimage. 2015. doi:
    1. Ramanoël S, Kauffmann L, Cousin E, Dojat M, Peyrin C. Age-related differences in spatial frequency processing during scene categorization. PLoS One. 2015;10(8). doi:
    1. Guyader N, Chauvin A, Boucart M, Peyrin C. Do low spatial frequencies explain the extremely fast saccades towards human faces? Vision Res. 2017;133:100–111. doi:
    1. Bex PJ, Makous W. Spatial frequency, phase, and the contrast of natural images. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 2002;19(6):1096–1106. doi:
    1. Goffaux V, Rossion B. Face Inversion Disproportionately Impairs the Perception of Vertical but not Horizontal Relations Between Features. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007;33(4):995–1002. doi:
    1. Mckone E, Yovel G. Why does picture-plane inversion sometimes dissociate perception of features and spacing in faces, and sometimes not? toward a new theory of holistic processing. Psychon Bull Rev. 2009;16(5):778–97. doi:
    1. Tanaka JW, Kaiser MD, Hagen S, Pierce LJ. Losing face: Impaired discrimination of featural and configural information in the mouth region of an inverted face. Attention, Perception, Psychophys. 2014;76(4):1000–14.
    1. Cabeza R, Kato T. Features are Also Important: Contributions of Featural and Configural Processing to Face Recognition. Psychol Sci [Internet]. 2000;11(5):429–33. Available from:
    1. Marechal M, Chaprin T, El Chehab H, Fenolland JR, Marill AF, Rosenberg R, et al. Interest of central 10‐2 visual field in glaucomatous and glaucoma suspects patients with normal central 24‐2 visual field. Acta Ophthalmol. 92(s253):0–0. doi:
    1. Boucart M, Moroni C, Szaffarczyk S, Tran THC. Implicit processing of scene context in macular degeneration. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013. doi:
    1. Boucart M, Lenoble Q, Quettelart J, Szaffarczyk S, Despretz P, Thorpe SJ. Finding faces, animals, and vehicles in far peripheral vision. J Vis. 2016;16:1–13. doi:
    1. Rosch E, Mervis CB, Gray WD, Johnson DM, Boyes-Braem P. Basic objects in natural categories. Cogn Psychol. 1976;8(3):382–439. doi:
    1. Jebara N, Pins D, Despretz P, Boucart M. Face or building superiority in peripheral vision reversed by task requirements. Adv Cogn Psychol. 2009;5(1):42–53. doi:
    1. Larson AM, Loschky LC. The contributions of central versus peripheral vision to scene gist recognition. 2009. doi:
    1. Levy I, Hasson U, Avidan G, Hendler T, Malach R. Center–periphery organization of human object areas. Nat Neurosci. 2001;4(5):533–539. doi:
    1. Hasson U, Levy I, Behrmann M, Hendler T, Malach R. Eccentricity bias as an organizing principle for human high-order object areas. Neuron. 2002;34(3):479–490. doi:
    1. Malach R, Levy I, Hasson U. The topography of high-order human object areas. Trends Cogn Sci. 2002;6(4):176–184. doi:
    1. Nelson P, Aspinall P, O’Brien C. Patients’ perception of visual impairment in glaucoma: a pilot study. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;83(5):546–552. doi:
    1. Dacey D. Origins of perception: retinal ganglion cell diversity and the creation of parallel visual pathways. In: The Cognitive Neurosciences, 3; 2004:281–301.
    1. Yücel YH, Zhang Q, Weinreb RN, Kaufman PL, Gupta N. Atrophy of relay neurons in magno- and parvocellular layers in the lateral geniculate nucleus in experimental glaucoma. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42(13):3216–3222. doi:
    1. Weber AJ, Chen H, Hubbard WC, Kaufman PL. Number in the Primate Lateral Geniculate Nucleus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41(6):1370–1379.
    1. Gupta N, Yücel YH. What Changes Can We Expect in the Brain of Glaucoma Patients? Surv Ophthalmol. 2007;52(6 SUPPL.):122–126. doi:
    1. Boucard CC, Hernowo AT, Maguire RP, Jansonius NM, Roerdink JB, Hooymans JM, et al. Changes in cortical grey matter density associated with long-standing retinal visual field defects. Brain. 2009;132(Pt 7):1898–1906. doi:
    1. Duncan RO, Sample PA, Weinreb RN, Bowd C, Zangwill LM. Retinotopic organization of primary visual cortex in glaucoma: Comparing fMRI measurements of cortical function with visual field loss. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2007;26(1):38–56. doi:
    1. Frezzotti P, Giorgio A, Motolese I, De Leucio A, Iester A, Motolese E, et al. Structural and functional brain changes beyond visual system in patients with advanced glaucoma. PLoS One. 2014;9(8). doi:
    1. Gerente VM, Schor RR, Chaim KT, de Maria Felix M, Ventura DF, Teixeira SH, et al. Evaluation of glaucomatous damage via functional magnetic resonance imaging, and correlations thereof with anatomical and psychophysical ocular findings. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):1–12. doi:
    1. Qing G, Zhang S, Wang B, Wang N. Functional MRI Signal Changes in Primary Visual Cortex Corresponding to the Central Normal Visual Field of Patients with Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma. Investig Opthalmology Vis Sci. 2010;51(9):4627 doi:
    1. Chen WW, Wang N, Cai S, Fang Z, Yu M, Wu Q, et al. Structural brain abnormalities in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma: A study with 3T MR imaging. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(1):545–554. doi:
    1. Li C, Cai P, Shi L, Lin Y, Zhang J, Suqing L, et al. Voxel-based Morphometry of the Visual-related Cortex in Primary Open Angle Glaucoma. Curr Eye Res. 2012;37(9):794–802. doi:
    1. Brown HDH, Woodall RL, Kitching RE, Baseler HA, Morland AB. Using magnetic resonance imaging to assess visual deficits: A review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2016;36(3):240–265. doi:
    1. Dai H, Morelli JN, Ai F, Yin D, Hu C, Xu D, et al. Resting-state functional MRI: Functional connectivity analysis of the visual cortex in primary open-angle glaucoma patients. Hum Brain Mapp. 2013;34(10):2455–2463. doi:
    1. Grill-Spector K, Kourtzi Z, Kanwisher N. The lateral occipital complex and its role in object recognition. In: Vision Research.; 2001. doi:
    1. Epstein R, Kanwisher N. A cortical representation of the local visual environment. Nature. 1998;392(6676):598–601. doi:
    1. Epstein R. The cortical basis of visual scene processing. Vis cogn. 2005;12(6):954–978. doi:

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe