{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,9]],"date-time":"2026-09-09T18:08:59Z","timestamp":1788977339699,"version":"build-2803163510"},"reference-count":20,"publisher":"MDPI AG","issue":"9","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,5,6]],"date-time":"2025-05-06T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1746489600000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["JCM"],"abstract":"<jats:p>Objectives: Visual field (VF) testing is key to assessing functional loss in glaucoma. Despite its clinical value, traditional VF testing has a number of limitations, including its dependency on medical equipment and posturing requirements. The present study examines the acceptance, tolerability, and comfort of home-based VF testing using a virtual reality (VR) headset. Method: Healthy subjects were prospectively enrolled to undergo VF examination in a non-clinical setting using a commercially available stereoscopic VR headset and SORS (sequentially optimized reconstruction strategy) on the VisionOne platform. Subjects were supervised and wore their own spectacles within the headset. After the VR VF test, they were asked about their comfort, side effects, and readiness to repeat the examination at home. Results: Of the 12 subjects enrolled, 7 were female (58.3%) and 5 were male (41.7%). Mean age was 45 years (range: 30\u201368). While none of the subjects suffered from glaucoma, their medical histories included severe arthritis, refractive surgery, high myopia, amblyopia, and esotropia. The mean self-reported comfort score was 8.75 out of 10 (range: 8\u201310), with some subjects taking the test in the dorsal decubitus position. Eleven subjects (91.7%) considered the device to be easy to use, and 100% responded that they would be willing to repeat the test at home, of which 41.7% stated they would prefer to be supervised by a clinician. Overall, three subjects reported mild side effects, namely light asthenopia, epiphora, and periocular flushing. All side effects were mild and self-limited. The mean perceived duration of the test (187 s) correlated strongly with the mean actual duration (166 s; Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.76, p-value = 0.007). In all, 58.3% of perceived durations were shorter than the actual test durations. Mean false negative and false positive responses were 3.75% and 4.7%, respectively. Central fixation recorded by real-time eye tracking was maintained on average 73.23% of the time and showed a strong correlation with false negative responses (r = 0.75; p = 0.026). Conclusions: While the present study did not examine the test algorithm itself, it suggests that home-based VF testing using a VR headset is well tolerated and accepted, with high levels of self-reported comfort and only mild side effects. While all subjects welcomed the opportunity to perform clinical tests from home, over a third expressed a preference for supervision. Real-time eye tracking correlated well with traditional reliability markers, suggesting potential clinical value.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.3390\/jcm14093219","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2025,5,6]],"date-time":"2025-05-06T09:08:56Z","timestamp":1746522536000},"page":"3219","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/mdpi_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":4,"title":["Patient Comfort, Acceptance, and Tolerability of Virtual Reality (VR) Headsets with Real-Time Eye Tracking for Remote Visual Field Testing"],"prefix":"10.3390","volume":"14","author":[{"given":"Athena","family":"Lallouette","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Gen\u00e8ve Ophtalmologie, CH-1205 Geneva, Switzerland"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Kevin","family":"Gillmann","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Gen\u00e8ve Ophtalmologie, CH-1205 Geneva, Switzerland"},{"name":"University of London, Queen Mary, London WC1E 7HU, UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"1968","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,5,6]]},"reference":[{"key":"ref_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"83","DOI":"10.5005\/jp-journals-10078-1265","article-title":"Novel Means of Clinical Visual Function Testing among Glaucoma Patients, Including Virtual Reality","volume":"13","author":"Skalicky","year":"2019","journal-title":"J. Curr. Glaucoma. Pract."},{"key":"ref_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1128","DOI":"10.1136\/bjophthalmol-2015-307110","article-title":"Anxiety in visual field testing","volume":"100","author":"Chew","year":"2016","journal-title":"Br. J. Ophthalmol."},{"key":"ref_3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"514","DOI":"10.1109\/TBME.2023.3308475","article-title":"An Extensive-Form Game Paradigm for Visual Field Testing via Deep Reinforcement Learning","volume":"71","author":"Ma","year":"2024","journal-title":"IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng."},{"key":"ref_4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"83","DOI":"10.1111\/opo.13229","article-title":"Comparing a head-mounted virtual reality perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer for visual field testing in healthy and glaucoma patients","volume":"44","author":"Phu","year":"2024","journal-title":"Ophthalmic. Physiol. Opt."},{"key":"ref_5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"3","DOI":"10.1167\/tvst.9.13.3","article-title":"Comparative Study Between the SORS and Dynamic Strategy Visual Field Testing Methods on Glaucomatous and Healthy Subjects","volume":"9","author":"Kucur","year":"2020","journal-title":"Transl. Vis. Sci. Technol."},{"key":"ref_6","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"233","DOI":"10.1016\/0149-7189(82)90074-X","article-title":"The client satisfaction questionnaire: Psychometric properties and correlations with service utilization and psychotherapy outcome","volume":"5","author":"Attkisson","year":"1982","journal-title":"Eval. Program Plann."},{"key":"ref_7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Humbert, A., Kohls, E., Baldofski, S., Epple, C., and Rummel-Kluge, C. (2023). Acceptability, feasibility, and user satisfaction of a virtual reality relaxation intervention in a psychiatric outpatient setting during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front. Psychiatry, 14, Erratum in: Front. Psychiatry 2024, 14, 1358379.","DOI":"10.3389\/fpsyt.2023.1271702"},{"key":"ref_8","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"18","DOI":"10.1186\/s41235-023-00466-1","article-title":"Restricting the distribution of visual attention reduces cybersickness","volume":"8","author":"Yip","year":"2023","journal-title":"Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic."},{"key":"ref_9","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"121","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ogla.2022.05.001","article-title":"Home Monitoring of Glaucoma Using a Home Tonometer and a Novel Virtual Reality Visual Field Device: Acceptability and Feasibility","volume":"6","author":"Hu","year":"2023","journal-title":"Ophthalmol. Glaucoma"},{"key":"ref_10","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Wroblewski, D., Francis, B.A., Sadun, A., Vakili, G., and Chopra, V. (2014). Testing of visual field with virtual reality goggles in manual and visual grasp modes. Biomed. Res. Int., 2014.","DOI":"10.1155\/2014\/206082"},{"key":"ref_11","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Hekmatjah, N., Chibututu, C., Han, Y., Keenan, J.D., and Oatts, J.T. (2025). Virtual reality perimetry compared to standard automated perimetry in adults with glaucoma: A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 20.","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0318074"},{"key":"ref_12","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"4","DOI":"10.5005\/jp-journals-10078-1434","article-title":"Prospective Comparison of VisuALL Virtual Reality Perimetry and Humphrey Automated Perimetry in Glaucoma","volume":"18","author":"Griffin","year":"2024","journal-title":"J. Curr. Glaucoma Pract."},{"key":"ref_13","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"14","DOI":"10.1167\/tvst.13.6.14","article-title":"Repeatability of a Virtual Reality Headset Perimeter in Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertensive Patients","volume":"13","author":"Kim","year":"2024","journal-title":"Transl. Vis. Sci. Technol."},{"key":"ref_14","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"10","DOI":"10.1167\/tvst.13.3.10","article-title":"Validation of a Wearable Virtual Reality Perimeter for Glaucoma Staging, The NOVA Trial: Novel Virtual Reality Field Assessment","volume":"13","author":"Bradley","year":"2024","journal-title":"Transl. Vis. Sci. Technol."},{"key":"ref_15","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Najdawi, W.O., Jiang, F., Zamba, G.K.D., Johnson, C.A., and Pouw, A.E. (Ophthalmol. Glaucoma, 2024). Comparison of a Novel Head-mounted Perimeter vs. the Humphrey Field Analyzer, Ophthalmol. Glaucoma, in press.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ogla.2024.11.007"},{"key":"ref_16","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"122","DOI":"10.1080\/08164622.2024.2316002","article-title":"Understanding and identifying visual field progression","volume":"107","author":"McKendrick","year":"2024","journal-title":"Clin. Exp. Optom."},{"key":"ref_17","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"100639","DOI":"10.1016\/j.xops.2024.100639","article-title":"Virtual Reality Portable Perimetry and Home Monitoring of Glaucoma: Retention and Compliance over a 2-year Period","volume":"5","author":"Shi","year":"2024","journal-title":"Ophthalmol. Sci."},{"key":"ref_18","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2597","DOI":"10.2147\/OPTH.S187832","article-title":"Home-based visual field test for glaucoma screening comparison with Humphrey perimeter","volume":"12","author":"Tsapakis","year":"2018","journal-title":"Clin. Ophthalmol."},{"key":"ref_19","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e043130","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjopen-2020-043130","article-title":"Acceptability of a home-based visual field test (Eyecatcher) for glaucoma home monitoring: A qualitative study of patients\u2019 views and experiences","volume":"11","author":"Jones","year":"2021","journal-title":"BMJ Open"},{"key":"ref_20","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e003996","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjopen-2013-003996","article-title":"A qualitative investigation into patients\u2019 views on visual field testing for glaucoma monitoring","volume":"4","author":"Glen","year":"2014","journal-title":"BMJ Open"}],"container-title":["Journal of Clinical Medicine"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.mdpi.com\/2077-0383\/14\/9\/3219\/pdf","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,9]],"date-time":"2025-10-09T17:27:41Z","timestamp":1760030861000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.mdpi.com\/2077-0383\/14\/9\/3219"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2025,5,6]]},"references-count":20,"journal-issue":{"issue":"9","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,5]]}},"alternative-id":["jcm14093219"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/jcm14093219","relation":{},"ISSN":["2077-0383"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2077-0383","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2025,5,6]]}}}