Mouth-nose masks impair the visual field of healthy eyes

Annika Weber; Bettina Hohberger; Antonio Bergua

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251201

Abstract

Background

Mouth-nose masks have been requested to prevent the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). The aim of the present study was to investigate, if wearing a mouth-nose mask impairs the visual field function in normals.

Methods

Thirty eyes of 30 subjects were recruited for the present study. White-on-white perimetry (OCTOPUS 900; 90°) was done and sensitivity was analysed in 14 defined test points (P1-P14, inferior visual field) under 3 different test conditions while the subjects were wearing a mouth-nose mask: (I) 1.5 cm under the lower eyelid, nose clip not used (position_{1.5cm_no_clip}); (II) 1.5 cm under the lower eyelid, nose clip correctly positioned (position_{1.5cm_with_clip}); (III) 0.5 cm under the lower eyelid, nose clip correctly positioned (position_{0.5cm_with_clip}). All data were compared to sensitivity without wearing a mouth-nose mask (reference). Mean Δ was calculated, being the difference between the results of each test condition and reference, respectively.

Results

Sensitivity was significantly different between position_{1.5cm_no_clip} and reference at 10 test points (p<0.05). Sensitivity at test point P7 was significantly different between position_{1.5cm_with_clip} and position_{0.5cm_with_clip} compared to reference (p<0.001), respectively. Mean Δ increased while wearing a mask at P7: position_{1.5cm_with_clip} (-8.3 dB ± 7.3 dB) < position_{0.5cm_with_clip} (-11.3 dB ± 9.5 dB) < position_{1.5cm_no_clip} (-20.1 dB ± 7.6 dB).

Conclusion

Visual field function was observed to be significantly impaired in the inferior-nasal sector while persons were wearing a mouth-nose mask, especially when the nose clip was not correctly used.

Citation: Weber A, Hohberger B, Bergua A (2021) Mouth-nose masks impair the visual field of healthy eyes. PLoS ONE 16(5): e0251201. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251201

Editor: Andrew Anderson, The University of Melbourne, AUSTRALIA

Received: December 22, 2020; Accepted: April 21, 2021; Published: May 13, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Weber et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are available in the manuscript.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

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

Introduction

Visual field can be impaired due to diverse diseases mostly by ocular (e.g. glaucoma [1, 2], retinitis pigmentosa [3], diabetic retinopathy [4]) and neurological disorders (e.g. stroke [5], cancer [6]). A perimetric defect can affect central or peripheral visual field or even both. Visual field defects can be measured by using a static or kinetic perimeter. Static perimetry is the most commonly used type of perimetry, using fixed test points. The stimuli are presented in different luminance in order to find each sensitivity for each defined point. Contrary, the stimulus is moving from the non-seen-region into the seen-region along a vector in the kinetic perimetry. Static perimetry is more suitable for detecting small changes of sensitivity, especially in the central part of the visual field, than kinetic ones. Therefore, it is used more commonly for diagnosis of diseases with a more central affection (e.g. glaucoma) [7]. It is important to analyse the functional impact of a disorder without any side-effects. This enables an exact initial diagnosis and unbiased follow-up. As perimetry is a psychophysical method, it is known that the results can be affected by e.g. concentration [8] mental disability or even wrong refraction [9]. In addition, extraocular factors (e.g. malposition of eyelids [10]) can affect visual field function, consequently interfering with the functional deficit of ocular diseases.

Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) has reached pandemic character in 2020. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) was assigned as causing agent, transmitted from human-to-human mostly via the respiratory system [11, 12]. In order to prevent or at least to reduce infection with SARS-CoV-2 via respiratory tract, the World Health Organization recommends to keep physical distance of at least one metre and to wear a mask covering mouth and nose [13]. The protective efficiency of the masks [14] is even higher when both, the not infected person and the virus spreader, are wearing it [15]. People in many countries have therefore been bound by law to wear a mouth-nose mask in situations when it is not possible to keep distance. There has been no defined standard except that the mask had to cover mouth and nose. Therefore, people have been wearing many different kinds of masks, sometimes home-made or ill-fitting. Two case reports have already reported about visual field artefacts from using a mouth-nose-mask in clinical visual field testing by fogging of the trial lens or incorrect wearing of the mask [16, 17]. Considering different sizes and shapes of the mouth-nose-masks, there might be different effects of visual field restriction. To the best of our knowledge there is no study available in literature investigating a potential impact of mouth-nose-masks on visual field function in healthy eyes considering different positions of the masks. Thus, it was the aim of the present study to investigate, if wearing a mouth-nose-mask in different positions can affect visual field function in normals.

Material and methods

Participants

Thirty eyes of 30 participants (19 male; 11 female) were included in the present study. The average age was 25.4 years with a range of 20–37 years. All participants received a complete standardized ophthalmologic examination including slit-lamp microscopy, funduscopy and non-contact-tonometry. The presence of any eye disease or previous ophthalmologic surgery (except for laser treatment) was an exclusion criterion. Best corrected visual acuity was ≥0.8 (decimal) or 20/25 (Snellen notation). Intraocular pressure was within the normal range (≤21 mmHg). All participants had to do a test run before participating and the order of the measurements was different between each participant in order to avoid learning effects. The study protocol has been approved by the local ethic committee of the University of Erlangen-Nürnberg and has been performed in accordance with the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed written consent has been obtained from all participants.

Mouth-nose mask

A medical mouth-nose mask (Mölnlycke BARRIER Medical Face Mask, Göteborg, Sweden) was used. The mask had head ties for fixation behind the head and a nose clip. Positioning the mask in three different ways (Fig 1) resulted in four different measurements per participant including the reference measurement without wearing a mask. Tape was used to fixate the mask to avoid the mask riding up the participant’s face and to keep the mask in the required place. The first position of the mask was 1.5 cm under the lower eyelid without using the nose clip (position_{1.5cm_no_clip}). The second position was 1.5 cm under the lower eyelid while using the nose clip correctly (position_{1.5cm_with_clip}). The third position was 0.5 cm under the lower eyelid while using the nose clip correctly (position_{0.5cm_with_clip}). The order of the measurements was chosen randomly.

Download:

Fig 1. Position of the mouth-nose mask during visual field testing.

Position_{1.5cm_no_clip} (top): 1.5 cm below the lower eyelid without using the nose clip; position_{1.5cm_with_clip} (middle): 1.5 cm below the lower eyelid with use the nose clip; position_{0.5cm_with_clip} (bottom): 0.5 cm below the lower eyelid using the nose clip.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251201.g001

Perimetry

Visual field function has been tested by white-on-white perimetry (OCTOPUS 900, Haag-Streit, Switzerland; EyeSuite V3.6.1) using the Low-Vision Strategy. This strategy is a quantitative strategy, allowing to detect specific sensitivity for each point with a high accuracy.

The stimulus is round with an area of 64 mm², being similar to the Goldmann Stimulus size V and presented with a length of 200 ms. The maximum stimulus luminance is 0 dB (= 4000 asb) and the lowest is 40 dB (= 0.4 asb) with a background luminance of 31.4 asb. Using the 90° perimetry Low-Vision strategy, it was not necessary to use a trial lens. As no lens was used, invalid data due to fogging were avoided. The test was done monocularly. The second eye was occluded with an eye patch. Fourteen points in the quantitative visualisation were defined in order to compare potential perimetric restrictions (Fig 2). The cartesian coordinates for the left eye are: P1 (60|0), P2 (45|-15), P3 (45|-30), P4 (30|-30), P5 (30|-45), P6 (15|-45), P7 (15|-60), P8 (0|-60), P9 (-15|-60), P10 (-15|-75), P11 (-30|-60), P12 (-30|-75), P13 (-45|-60), P14 (-60|-60). Each test point was compared between the test run while wearing a mask and without wearing a mask, respectively.

Download:

Fig 2. 90° perimetry, displaying the 14 defined test-points.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251201.g002

The rate of false positive answers, detecting participants who respond without a stimulus, had to be ≤ 20%. The rate of false negative answers, detecting loss of attention, had to be ≤25%. The reliability factor had to be <18% per measurement and the overall reliability factor (calculated of all four measurements) had to be <10%. The reliability factor was calculated as the sum of false positive and false negative answers.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was done by Microsoft Excel version 2010 and SPSS 2020. Mean values and standard deviations were calculated. Quantitative analysis showed sensitivity [dB] for each test point: test points P1-P14 were compared between the run without wearing the mask and while wearing the mask in the three different positions, respectively. The differences in sensitivity (Δ) at the 14 test points compared to the reference points were calculated for each participant and each mask position. Furthermore, position_{1.5cm_no_clip} and position_{0.5cm_with_clip} was compared to position_{1.5cm_with_clip} in the same way. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was done (level of significance, p<0.05). Bonferroni correction was done considering multiple testing.

Results

Mean sensitivity of the overall perimetry was 28.5±2.4 dB without wearing a mask, 26.6±2.4 dB while wearing the mask in position_{1.5cm_no_clip}, 28.3±2.4 dB while wearing the mask in position_{1.5cm_with_clip}, and 27.8±2.2 dB while wearing the mask in position_{0.5cm_with_clip}. Mean sensitivity at each test point can be seen in Table 1. Detailed analysis for each test point yielded that the sensitivity at test point P3 –P12 was significantly different between position_{1.5cm_no_clip} compared to the sensitivity without wearing a mask (Fig 3). In addition, sensitivity at test point P7 differed significantly between wearing a mask in position_{1.5cm_with_clip} (p<0.001) or in position_{0.5cm_with_clip} (p<0.001) and without wearing a mask, respectively. No significant differences in sensitivity were observed at test point P1, P2, P13 and P14 (position_{1.5cm_no_clip}) and at test point P1-P6 and P8-P14 (in position_{1.5cm_with_clip} and position_{0.5cm_with_clip}), compared to sensitivity without wearing a mask (p>0.05).

Download:

Fig 3. Differences in sensitivity between the different mask positions (A: Position_{1.5cm_no_clip}; B: Position_{1.5cm_with_clip}; C: Position_{0.5cm_with_clip}) and without wearing a mask (Δ): Mean Δ sensitivity; the square represents significant differences (p<0.05), the circle represents no significant difference; significant reductions Δ were observed for P7 (all three positions) and P8 (position_{1.5cm_no_clip}).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251201.g003

Download:

Table 1. Mean sensitivity.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251201.t001

Differences in sensitivity between the different mask positions and reference showed a maximum Δ at test point P7 (all three positions) and P8 (position_{1.5cm_no_clip} Fig 3). Especially at test point P7, mean Δ increased while wearing a mask in: position_{1.5cm_with_clip} (mean Δ -8.3±7.3 dB) < position_{0.5cm_with_clip} (mean Δ -11.3±9.5 dB) < position_{1.5cm_no_clip} (mean Δ -20.1±7.6 dB).

Comparing the sensitivity between position_{1.5cm_with_clip} and position_{0.5cm_with_clip}, significant differences (p = 0.015) were observed in test point P5 due to different positions under the lower eyelid (Fig 4). Data of not using the nose clip yielded significant differences in 8 of 14 test points (comparison of position_{1.5cm_with_clip} and position_{1.5cm_no_clip}, Fig 4).

Download:

Fig 4. Differences in sensitivity between D: Position_{1.5cm_no_clip} compared to position_{1.5cm_with_clip} and E: Position_{0.5cm_with_clip} compared to position_{1.5cm_with_clip}; mean Δ sensitivity; the square represents significant differences (p<0.05); the circle represents no significant difference.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251201.g004

Discussion

COVID-19 pandemic required wearing mouth-nose masks in order to prevent or at least to reduce the risk of an infection with SARS-CoV-2. A huge variety of mouth-nose masks is available. In addition, many people have manufactured and have been wearing their own home-made cotton masks. Most of the home-made cotton masks do not have a nose clip and thus cannot be worn closely to the nose. Wearing a mask in the wrong way (e.g. without using the nose clip at all) or wearing masks that have no nose clip or that cannot be adjusted to the nose might affect the visual field. The data of the present study showed that visual field function was significantly impaired in 10 of 14 test points while wearing a mask 1.5 cm below the lower eyelid without using the nose clip. These test points represent the lower part of the visual field, which is especially important for orientation, walking and driving. Thus, even if the subject was wearing the mask in the right way (i.e. using the head ties for fixation behind the head and the nose clip to fix the mask closely to the face), a significantly impaired visual field was observed in one test point of the present study. The deviation to the reference measurement was even higher when the mask was worn only 0.5 cm under the lower eyelid (position_{0.5cm_with_clip}). Wearing the mask 1.5 cm under the lower eyelid (position_{1.5cm_with_clip}) impaired visual field as well less, being probably due to the adjusted nose clip. Yet, even when the nose clip was adjusted in the right way and pressed closely to the nose, it still represented an obstruction in the lower nasal visual field.

To the best of our knowledge, the data of the present study are the first ones investigating an impairment of visual field due to mouth-nose-masks in healthy eyes. Only two recent case reports had previously shown visual field artefacts from using a mouth-nose-mask in clinical visual field testing due to fogging of the trial lens [16, 17]. The mask can be taped to the nose [16] or can be tied around the head with a special technique, in which the superior and inferior ties cross before the ear in order to reduce fogging [18]. In one of the case studies the examiners perceived that due to the mask riding up in the face during the examination the patient’s visual field was reduced [17]. Many ocular and neurological diseases impair visual field. Their visual field will be even more restricted, if these patients do wear a mask in the wrong way or wear a mask that cannot be worn closely to the nose. An enhanced visual field loss can result in a higher risk of falling [19–21]. Incidents like falling might increase morbidity and mortality especially in elderly persons [22]. Perimetric loss in the inferior visual field was associated with a poorer functional status. Weaker lower limb strengths and slower timed-up and go performance [23], a slower walking speed [24], and shortened step length [25] were reported. In addition, restriction of visual field is a problem considering traffic [20, 26, 27]. People with visual field defects often use compensatory mechanisms like moving their eyes more frequently [28]. This compensatory mechanism is useful and reduces the number of collisions, but it cannot prevent all collisions. A study with young and healthy participants showed an increasing number of pedestrian collisions after constricting the participants visual field. Using compensatory mechanisms (e.g. eye movements) reduced these pedestrian collisions, yet the number of collisions was still significantly increased compared to without restriction of visual field [29]. Therefore, wearing a mask while driving a car might be a reason for preventable accidents, even if the driver is young and healthy and uses compensatory mechanisms.

The present study is not without limitations. The data could be biased by the not systematic and principled approach of randomisation of the order of measurements (with the various mask positions or selection of study eye). Further on, only one type of mouth-nose mask was used during the tests. As several types of mouth-nose masks are available (e.g. home-made, FFP2, FFP3) it would be of interest, if other types of masks might impair visual field in the same way or even more. In addition, testing mask-induced visual field impairment would be of interest in patients with pre-existing perimetric loss.

Conclusion

The data of the present study showed that it is important to wear the mouth-nose mask correctly in order to avoid a perimetric impairment. While manufacturing own home-made masks, it should be kept in mind to use a pattern that will not be an obstruction in the field of view and include a nose clip. However, even if the mask is correctly fixed to the head, the mask was observed to be still a factor influencing visual field function. Therefore, it should be considered, if wearing a mask while driving a car is sensible: a plastic shield between driver and passengers can be an option to avoid a mask-induced restricted visual field of the driver and would therefore contribute to safety of driver and passengers.

Acknowledgments

The present work has been performed in fulfilment of the requirements for obtaining the degree „Dr. med.” at the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU).

References

1. Broman AT, Quigley HA, West SK, Katz J, Munoz B, Bandeen-Roche K, et al. Estimating the rate of progressive visual field damage in those with open-angle glaucoma, from cross-sectional data. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49(1):66–76. pmid:18172076
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Ballae Ganeshrao S, Senthil S, Choudhari N, Sri Durgam S, Garudadri CS. Comparison of Visual Field Progression Rates Among the High Tension Glaucoma, Primary Angle Closure Glaucoma, and Normal Tension Glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2019;60(4):889–900. pmid:30835290
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Hartong DT, Berson EL, Dryja TP. Retinitis pigmentosa. Lancet. 2006;368(9549):1795–809. pmid:17113430
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Sanders RJ, Wilson MR. Diabetes-related eye disorders. J Natl Med Assoc. 1993;85(2):104–8. pmid:8441184
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Rowe FJ, Wright D, Brand D, Jackson C, Harrison S, Maan T, et al. A prospective profile of visual field loss following stroke: prevalence, type, rehabilitation, and outcome. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:719096. pmid:24089687
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Lee JP, Park IW, Chung YS. The volume of tumor mass and visual field defect in patients with pituitary macroadenoma. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2011;25(1):37–41. pmid:21350693
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Agarwal HC, Gulati V, Sihota R. Visual field assessment in glaucoma: comparative evaluation of manual kinetic Goldmann perimetry and automated static perimetry. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2000;48(4):301–6. pmid:11340889
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Hudson C, Wild JM, O’Neill EC. Fatigue effects during a single session of automated static threshold perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994;35(1):268–80. pmid:8300355
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Artes PH, Nicolela MT, McCormick TA, LeBlanc RP, Chauhan BC. Effects of blur and repeated testing on sensitivity estimates with frequency doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44(2):646–52. pmid:12556394
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Klingele J, Kaiser HJ, Hatt M. [Automated perimetry in ptosis and blepharochalasis]. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 1995;206(5):401–4. pmid:7609399
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. van Doremalen N, Bushmaker T, Morris DH, Holbrook MG, Gamble A, Williamson BN, et al. Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(16):1564–7. pmid:32182409
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Zhang R, Li Y, Zhang AL, Wang Y, Molina MJ. Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117(26):14857–63. pmid:32527856
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. WHO. Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19. 05.06.2020.
14. Fischer EP, Fischer MC, Grass D, Henrion I, Warren WS, Westman E. Low-cost measurement of face mask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets during speech. Sci Adv. 2020;6(36). pmid:32917603
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Ueki H, Furusawa Y, Iwatsuki-Horimoto K, Imai M, Kabata H, Nishimura H, et al. Effectiveness of Face Masks in Preventing Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2. mSphere. 2020;5(5). pmid:33087517
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. El-Nimri NW, Moghimi S, Fingeret M, Weinreb RN. Visual Field Artifacts in Glaucoma With Face Mask Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic. J Glaucoma. 2020. pmid:33116056
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Young SL, Smith ML, Tatham AJ. Visual Field Artifacts From Face Mask Use. J Glaucoma. 2020;29(10):989–91. pmid:32675556
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Jordan DJ, Pritchard-Jones R. Tying a surgical mask to prevent fogging. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2014;96(2):165. pmid:24780682
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Coleman AL, Cummings SR, Yu F, Kodjebacheva G, Ensrud KE, Gutierrez P, et al. Binocular visual-field loss increases the risk of future falls in older white women. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55(3):357–64. pmid:17341237
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Haymes SA, Leblanc RP, Nicolela MT, Chiasson LA, Chauhan BC. Risk of falls and motor vehicle collisions in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48(3):1149–55. pmid:17325158
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Freeman EE, Munoz B, Rubin G, West SK. Visual field loss increases the risk of falls in older adults: the Salisbury eye evaluation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48(10):4445–50. pmid:17898264
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Rubenstein LZ. Falls in older people: epidemiology, risk factors and strategies for prevention. Age Ageing. 2006;35 Suppl 2:ii37–ii41. pmid:16926202
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Black AA, Wood JM, Lovie-Kitchin JE. Inferior visual field reductions are associated with poorer functional status among older adults with glaucoma. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2011;31(3):283–91. pmid:21410740
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Turano KA, Broman AT, Bandeen-Roche K, Munoz B, Rubin GS, West S, et al. Association of visual field loss and mobility performance in older adults: Salisbury Eye Evaluation Study. Optom Vis Sci. 2004;81(5):298–307. pmid:15181354
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Marigold DS, Patla AE. Visual information from the lower visual field is important for walking across multi-surface terrain. Exp Brain Res. 2008;188(1):23–31. pmid:18322679
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Kwon M, Huisingh C, Rhodes LA, McGwin G Jr., Wood JM, Owsley C. Association between Glaucoma and At-fault Motor Vehicle Collision Involvement among Older Drivers: A Population-based Study. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(1):109–16. pmid:26459997
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Huisingh C, McGwin G Jr., Wood J, Owsley C. The driving visual field and a history of motor vehicle collision involvement in older drivers: a population-based examination. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;56(1):132–8. pmid:25395488
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. 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):e9710. pmid:20300522
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Lee J, Itoh M. Driver compensation: Reducing the risk of pedestrian collisions under visual field contraction. 2017 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC). 2017:882–7.

[ref1] 1. Broman AT, Quigley HA, West SK, Katz J, Munoz B, Bandeen-Roche K, et al. Estimating the rate of progressive visual field damage in those with open-angle glaucoma, from cross-sectional data. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49(1):66–76. pmid:18172076
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Ballae Ganeshrao S, Senthil S, Choudhari N, Sri Durgam S, Garudadri CS. Comparison of Visual Field Progression Rates Among the High Tension Glaucoma, Primary Angle Closure Glaucoma, and Normal Tension Glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2019;60(4):889–900. pmid:30835290
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Hartong DT, Berson EL, Dryja TP. Retinitis pigmentosa. Lancet. 2006;368(9549):1795–809. pmid:17113430
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] PubMed/NCBI

[12] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Sanders RJ, Wilson MR. Diabetes-related eye disorders. J Natl Med Assoc. 1993;85(2):104–8. pmid:8441184
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] PubMed/NCBI

[16] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Rowe FJ, Wright D, Brand D, Jackson C, Harrison S, Maan T, et al. A prospective profile of visual field loss following stroke: prevalence, type, rehabilitation, and outcome. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:719096. pmid:24089687
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[18] View Article

[19] PubMed/NCBI

[20] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Lee JP, Park IW, Chung YS. The volume of tumor mass and visual field defect in patients with pituitary macroadenoma. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2011;25(1):37–41. pmid:21350693
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[22] View Article

[23] PubMed/NCBI

[24] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Agarwal HC, Gulati V, Sihota R. Visual field assessment in glaucoma: comparative evaluation of manual kinetic Goldmann perimetry and automated static perimetry. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2000;48(4):301–6. pmid:11340889
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[26] View Article

[27] PubMed/NCBI

[28] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Hudson C, Wild JM, O’Neill EC. Fatigue effects during a single session of automated static threshold perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994;35(1):268–80. pmid:8300355
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[30] View Article

[31] PubMed/NCBI

[32] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Artes PH, Nicolela MT, McCormick TA, LeBlanc RP, Chauhan BC. Effects of blur and repeated testing on sensitivity estimates with frequency doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44(2):646–52. pmid:12556394
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] PubMed/NCBI

[36] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Klingele J, Kaiser HJ, Hatt M. [Automated perimetry in ptosis and blepharochalasis]. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 1995;206(5):401–4. pmid:7609399
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] PubMed/NCBI

[40] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. van Doremalen N, Bushmaker T, Morris DH, Holbrook MG, Gamble A, Williamson BN, et al. Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(16):1564–7. pmid:32182409
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[42] View Article

[43] PubMed/NCBI

[44] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Zhang R, Li Y, Zhang AL, Wang Y, Molina MJ. Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117(26):14857–63. pmid:32527856
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[46] View Article

[47] PubMed/NCBI

[48] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. WHO. Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19. 05.06.2020.

[ref14] 14. Fischer EP, Fischer MC, Grass D, Henrion I, Warren WS, Westman E. Low-cost measurement of face mask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets during speech. Sci Adv. 2020;6(36). pmid:32917603
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[51] View Article

[52] PubMed/NCBI

[53] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Ueki H, Furusawa Y, Iwatsuki-Horimoto K, Imai M, Kabata H, Nishimura H, et al. Effectiveness of Face Masks in Preventing Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2. mSphere. 2020;5(5). pmid:33087517
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[55] View Article

[56] PubMed/NCBI

[57] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. El-Nimri NW, Moghimi S, Fingeret M, Weinreb RN. Visual Field Artifacts in Glaucoma With Face Mask Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic. J Glaucoma. 2020. pmid:33116056
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[59] View Article

[60] PubMed/NCBI

[61] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Young SL, Smith ML, Tatham AJ. Visual Field Artifacts From Face Mask Use. J Glaucoma. 2020;29(10):989–91. pmid:32675556
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[63] View Article

[64] PubMed/NCBI

[65] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Jordan DJ, Pritchard-Jones R. Tying a surgical mask to prevent fogging. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2014;96(2):165. pmid:24780682
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[67] View Article

[68] PubMed/NCBI

[69] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Coleman AL, Cummings SR, Yu F, Kodjebacheva G, Ensrud KE, Gutierrez P, et al. Binocular visual-field loss increases the risk of future falls in older white women. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55(3):357–64. pmid:17341237
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[71] View Article

[72] PubMed/NCBI

[73] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Haymes SA, Leblanc RP, Nicolela MT, Chiasson LA, Chauhan BC. Risk of falls and motor vehicle collisions in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48(3):1149–55. pmid:17325158
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[75] View Article

[76] PubMed/NCBI

[77] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Freeman EE, Munoz B, Rubin G, West SK. Visual field loss increases the risk of falls in older adults: the Salisbury eye evaluation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48(10):4445–50. pmid:17898264
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[79] View Article

[80] PubMed/NCBI

[81] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Rubenstein LZ. Falls in older people: epidemiology, risk factors and strategies for prevention. Age Ageing. 2006;35 Suppl 2:ii37–ii41. pmid:16926202
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[83] View Article

[84] PubMed/NCBI

[85] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Black AA, Wood JM, Lovie-Kitchin JE. Inferior visual field reductions are associated with poorer functional status among older adults with glaucoma. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2011;31(3):283–91. pmid:21410740
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[87] View Article

[88] PubMed/NCBI

[89] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Turano KA, Broman AT, Bandeen-Roche K, Munoz B, Rubin GS, West S, et al. Association of visual field loss and mobility performance in older adults: Salisbury Eye Evaluation Study. Optom Vis Sci. 2004;81(5):298–307. pmid:15181354
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[91] View Article

[92] PubMed/NCBI

[93] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Marigold DS, Patla AE. Visual information from the lower visual field is important for walking across multi-surface terrain. Exp Brain Res. 2008;188(1):23–31. pmid:18322679
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[95] View Article

[96] PubMed/NCBI

[97] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Kwon M, Huisingh C, Rhodes LA, McGwin G Jr., Wood JM, Owsley C. Association between Glaucoma and At-fault Motor Vehicle Collision Involvement among Older Drivers: A Population-based Study. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(1):109–16. pmid:26459997
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[99] View Article

[100] PubMed/NCBI

[101] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Huisingh C, McGwin G Jr., Wood J, Owsley C. The driving visual field and a history of motor vehicle collision involvement in older drivers: a population-based examination. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;56(1):132–8. pmid:25395488
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[103] View Article

[104] PubMed/NCBI

[105] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. 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):e9710. pmid:20300522
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[107] View Article

[108] PubMed/NCBI

[109] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Lee J, Itoh M. Driver compensation: Reducing the risk of pedestrian collisions under visual field contraction. 2017 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC). 2017:882–7.

Figures

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Introduction

Material and methods

Participants

Mouth-nose mask

Perimetry

Statistical analysis

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

References