Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Treatment of Homonymous Visual Field Defects

  • Neurologic Ophthalmology and Otology (RK Shin, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Neurology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Opinion statement

A clinical presentation of a retrochiasmal or homonymous visual field defect (HVFD) usually represents a permanent visual impairment. The visual and functional ramifications of HVFD will vary by patient. Comprehensive care—the clinical evaluation and consideration for treatment of HVFD—includes vision rehabilitation provided by optometrists, occupational therapists, or ophthalmologists. On the basis of individual patient needs, the eye care practitioner typically uses one or both of the following approaches to treat the HVFD: (1) field enhancement (also referred to in the literature as “field expansion”), in which optical systems incorporating prism are prescribed to optimize the use of the remaining vision, and (2) rehabilitative techniques including saccadic training (“compensation training”) or vision restorative therapy (“restitution training”). Although lacking in strength, the evidence does support benefits from field enhancement and saccadic training for patients with HVFD, but vision restorative therapy has not been shown to be an effective option.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Zhang X, Kedar S, Lynn MJ, et al. Homonymous hemianopias: clinical-anatomic correlations in 904 cases. Neurology. 2006;66:906–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Patel AT, Duncan PW, Lai SM, Studenski S. The relation between impairments and functional outcomes poststroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81:1357–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Trobe JD, Lorber ML, Schlezinger NS. Isolated homonymous hemianopia: a review of 104 cases. Arch Ophthalmol. 1973;89:377–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Trauzettel-Klosinski S: Rehabilitation for visual disorders. J Neuro-Ophthalmol 2010, 30:73–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Trauzettel-Klosinski S: Rehabilitative techniques. In Kennard C, Leigh RJ, editors. Neuro-ophthalmology: Handbook of Clinical Neurology, Vol 102. Oxford: Elsevier; 2011. p. 263–278.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Trauzettel-Klosinski S. Reading disorders due to visual field defects—a neuro-ophthalmological view. Neuroophthalmology. 2002;27:79–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. O’Neill EC, Connell PP, O’Connor JC, et al.: Prism therapy and visual rehabilitation in homonymous visual field loss. Optom Vis Sci 2011, 88:263–268.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang X, Kedar S, Lynn MJ, et al. Natural history of homonymous hemianopia. Neurology. 2006;66:901–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Trauzettel-Klosinski S, Brendler K. Eye movements in reading with hemianopic field defects: the significance of clinical parameters. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1998;236:91–102.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Legge GE, Ahn SJ, Klitz TS, et al. Psychophysics of reading. XVI. The visual span in normal and low vision. Vision Res. 1997;37:1999–2010.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. McConkie GW, Rayner K. The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Percept Psychophys. 1975;17:578–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. McConkie GW, Rayner K. Asymmetry of the perceptual span in reading. Bull Psychonom Soc. 1976;8:365–8.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Horton JC, Hoyt WF. The representation of the visual field in human striate cortex: a revision of the classic Holmes map. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;109:816–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. McFadzean R, Brosnahan D, Hadley D, et al. Representation of the visual field in the occipital striate cortex. Br J Ophthalmol. 1994;78:185–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Trauzettel-Klosinski S, Reinhard J. The vertical field border in human hemianopia and its significance for fixation behavior and reading. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1998;39:2177–86.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. von Noorden GK, Mackensen G. Phenomenology of eccentric fixation. Am J Ophthalmol. 1962;53:642–60.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fletcher DC, Schuchard RA. Preferred retinal loci relationship to macular scotomas in a low vision population. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:632–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Timberlake GT, Mainster MA, Peli E, et al. Reading with a macular scotoma I Retinal location of scotoma and fixation area. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1986;27:1137–44.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. White JM, Bedell HE. The oculomotor reference in humans with bilateral macular disease. Invest Ophthal Vis Sci. 1990;31:1149–61.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Trauzettel-Klosinski S. Eccentric fixation in hemianopic field defects—a valuable strategy to improve reading ability and an indication of cortical plasticity. Neuroophthalmology. 1997;18:117–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Trauzettel-Klosinski S, Teschner C, Tornow RP, et al. Reading strategies in normal subjects and in patients with macular scotoma—assessed by two new methods of registration. Neuroophthalmology. 1994;14:15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pambakian AL, Mannan SK, Hodgson TL, et al. Saccadic visual search training: a treatment for patients with homonymous hemianopia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2004;75:1443–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kerkhoff G, Münbinger U, Haaf E, et al. Rehabilitation of homonymous scotomata in patients with postgeniculate damage of the visual system: saccadic compensation training. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 1992;4:245–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Meienberg O, Sangemeister EH, Rosenberg M, et al. Saccadic eye movement strategies in patients with homonymous hemianopia. Ann Neurol. 1981;9:537–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Schuett S, Heywood CA, Kentridge RW, et al. Rehabilitation of hemianopic dyslexia: Are words necessary for re-learning oculomotor control? Brain. 2008;131:3156–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Spitzyna GA, Wise RJ, McDonald SA, et al. Optokinetic therapy improves text reading in patients with hemianopic alexia: a controlled trial. Neurology. 2007;68:1922–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. American Optometric Association. Optometric Clinical Practice Guideline: Care of the Patient with Visual Impairment. Available at http://www.aoa.org/documents/CPG-14.pdf. Accessed October 2011.

  28. Walsh TJ. Lawton Smith JL: Hemianopic spectacles. Am J Ophthalmol. 1966;61:914–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Goodlaw EI. Assessing visual field defects of the low-vision patient. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1981;58:486–91.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Peli E. Vision multiplexing: an engineering approach to vision rehabilitation device development. Optom Vis Sci. 2001;78:304–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Rossi PW, Kheyfets S, Reding MJ. Fresnel prisms improve visual perception in stroke patients with homonymous hemianopia or unilateral visual neglect. Neurology. 1990;40:1597–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Hedges Jr TR. Stunkard J, Twer A: Fresnel prisms—their value in the rehabilitation of homonymous hemianopia. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 1988;192:568–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bowers AR, Keeney K, Peli E. Community-based trial of a peripheral prism visual field expansion device for hemianopia. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126:657–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Peli E. Field expansion for homonymous hemianopia by optically induced peripheral exotropia. Optom Vis Sci. 2000;77:453–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Giorgi RG, Woods RL, Peli E: Clinical and laboratory evaluation of peripheral prism glasses for hemianopia. Optom Vis Sci 2009, 86:492–502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Pelak VS, Dubin M, Whitney E. Homonymous hemianopia: A critical analysis of optical devices, compensatory training, and NovaVision. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2007;9:41–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Zihl J. Visual scanning behavior in patients with homonymous hemianopia. Neuropsychologia. 1995;33:287–303.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Pambakian A, Currie J, Kennard C. Rehabilitation strategies for patients with homonymous visual field defects. J Neuro-Ophthalmol. 2005;25:136–42.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Mannan SK, Pambakian AL, Kennard C. Compensatory strategies following visual search training in patients with homonymous hemianopia: an eye movement study. J Neurol 2010, 257:1812–1821.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Roth T, Sokolov AN, Messias A, et al.: Comparing explorative saccade and flicker training in hemianopia: a randomized controlled study. Neurology 2009, 72:324–331.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Klavora P, Gaskovski P, Heselgrave RJ, et al.: Rehabilitation of visual skills using the Dynavision: A single case experimental study. Can J Occup Ther 1995, 62:37–43.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kasten E, Wust S, Behrens-Baumann W, et al. Computer-based training for the treatment of partial blindness. Nat Med. 1998;4:1083–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Horton JC. Disappointing results from Nova Vision’s visual restoration therapy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:1–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Horton JC. Visual restoration therapy: confounded by eye movements. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:792–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Schreiber A, Vonthein R, Reinhard J, et al. Effect of visual restitution training on absolute homonymous scotomas. Neurology. 2006;67:143–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Reinhard J, Schreiber A, Schiefer U, et al. Does visual restitution training change absolute homonymous visual field defects? A fundus controlled study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:30–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurology, University of Maryland Medical Center, 110 S. Paca St., 3rd Floor, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA

    Daniel R. Gold DO

  2. Wilmer Eye Institute, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 550 N. Broadway, 6th Floor, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA

    Lori L. Grover OD

Authors
  1. Daniel R. Gold DO
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lori L. Grover OD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel R. Gold DO.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gold, D.R., Grover, L.L. Treatment of Homonymous Visual Field Defects. Curr Treat Options Neurol 14, 73–83 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11940-011-0160-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11940-011-0160-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation