Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jan 1;139(1):27-32.
doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2020.4749.

Association of Patterns of Glaucomatous Macular Damage With Contrast Sensitivity and Facial Recognition in Patients With Glaucoma

Affiliations

Association of Patterns of Glaucomatous Macular Damage With Contrast Sensitivity and Facial Recognition in Patients With Glaucoma

Sitara H Hirji et al. JAMA Ophthalmol. .

Abstract

Importance: Facial recognition is a critical activity of daily living that relies on macular function. Glaucomatous macular damage may result in impaired facial recognition that may negatively affect patient quality of life.

Objective: To evaluate the association of patterns of glaucomatous macular damage with contrast sensitivity and facial recognition among patients with glaucoma.

Design, setting, and participants: In this prospective cohort study at a single tertiary care center, 144 eyes of 72 consecutive patients with glaucoma with good visual acuity (20/40 or better in each eye) were studied. Data were collected from March to April 2019.

Exposures: Eyes with macular damage were categorized as having focal, diffuse, or mixed (focal and diffuse) damage based on optic disc and macular spectral-domain optical coherence tomography and 10-2 visual field (VF) damage. Only eyes with focal or diffuse damage were included. Higher-acuity and lower-acuity eyes were determined by 10-2 VF mean deviation (MD). Facial disability was defined as facial recognition scores at the 2% level of normal participants.

Main outcomes and measures: (1) Monocular contrast threshold as measured by the Freiburg Visual Acuity and Contrast Test and (2) binocular facial recognition as measured by the Cambridge Face Memory Test.

Results: Of the 72 included patients, 49 (68%) were White and 41 (57%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 67.0 (11.6) years. Eyes with diffuse damage had greater contrast impairment compared with eyes with focal damage (β = -0.5; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.4; P < .001) after adjusting for 10-2 VF MD, 24-2 VF MD, age, presence of an early cataract, and number of drops. Similarly, Cambridge Face Memory Test scores were significantly lower in patients with diffuse rather than focal macular damage, regardless of eye (better-seeing eye: β = 10.0; 95% CI, 2.0 to 18.2; P = .001; worse-seeing eye: β = 5.5; 95% CI, 0.8 to 10.0; P = .23). Relative risk of facial disability was greater for patients with diffuse but not focal macular damage in the better-seeing eye (relative risk, 86.2; 95% CI, 2.7 to 2783.3; P = .01).

Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study, diffuse rather than focal glaucomatous macular damage was associated with diminished facial recognition and contrast sensitivity. Evaluation of macular optical coherence tomography and 10-2 VF and resultant detection of diffuse macular damage may help minimize glaucoma-related visual disability.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Hood has received grants, consulting fees, and equipment from Heidelberg Engineering and Topcon and consulting fees from Novartis. Dr Liebmann has received grants from Heidelberg Engineering and the National Eye Institute; consulting fees from Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Allergan, Carl Zeiss Meditech, Galimedix Therapeutics, Heidelberg Engineering, Infocus Capital Partners, Merck & Co, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Qura, Sensimed, and Sustained Nano Systems; holds patents and receives royalties from Théa Pharmaceuticals; and owns equity in Diopsys Corporation, Galimedix Therapeutics, Qura, SOLX, and Sustained Nano Systems. No other disclosures were reported.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Yardley L, McDermott L, Pisarski S, Duchaine B, Nakayama K. Psychosocial consequences of developmental prosopagnosia: a problem of recognition. J Psychosom Res. 2008;65(5):445-451. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2008.03.013 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Davis JM, McKone E, Dennett H, O’Connor KB, O’Kearney R, Palermo R. Individual differences in the ability to recognise facial identity are associated with social anxiety. PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e28800. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028800 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lane J, Rohan EMF, Sabeti F, et al. . Impacts of impaired face perception on social interactions and quality of life in age-related macular degeneration: a qualitative study and new community resources. PLoS One. 2018;13(12):e0209218. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0209218 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bernard JB, Chung ST. The role of external features in face recognition with central vision loss. Optom Vis Sci. 2016;93(5):510-520. doi:10.1097/OPX.0000000000000819 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sinha P. Qualitative representations for recognition. Paper presented at: Second International Workshop on Biologically Motivated Computer Vision; November 22-24, 2002; Tubingen, Germany. Accessed July 18, 2019. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/648248.751730 - DOI