Biofeedback stimulation in patients with age-related macular degeneration: comparison between 2 different methods

Abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate changes in patient’s visual performance after rehabilitation training with 2 different biofeedback training programs offered by the MP-1 microperimeter. Spontaneous retinal location of preferred retinal loci (PRLs) and fixation stability are not always optimal for best visual performances. MP-1 microperimeter biofeedback techniques have been suggested as modalities for training for better fixation stability and to find a better location of the new PRL in a more useful area of the retina in nonoptimal cases. The MP-1 microperimeter offers different biofeedback strategies, such as acoustic biofeedback and structured light stimulus plus acoustic biofeedback. DesignRetrospective study. ParticipantsThirty subjects affected by age-related macular degeneration with absolute central scotoma. MethodsA standard protocol of examination before and after visual rehabilitation training was performed on all study subjects. Assessment included demographics data, visual acuity, fixation stability, retinal sensitivity, and reading speed. Rehabilitation training was performed with standard and structured stimulus biofeedback. The whole sample was divided into 2 groups of 15 patients attending the 2 different stimulation training biofeedback. ResultsMean reading speed was found to be significantly increased for both groups (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01). Also, a statistically significant improvement of fixation stability was registered for both groups (p < 0.01). Only patients trained with the flickering pattern biofeedback stimulation increased retinal sensitivity (p < 0.01). ConclusionsBoth regular biofeedback and flickering pattern biofeedback training seem to improve visual functions. More benefits seem to be accrued, however, with flickering pattern biofeedback training.