SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Eye Movement Evaluation in Multiple Sclerosis and Parkinson's Disease Using a Standardized Oculomotor and Neuro-Ophthalmic Disorder Assessment (SONDA).

Front Neurol · 2020-09-08

DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2020.00971PMID: 33013643

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Evaluating the state of the oculomotor system of a patient is one of the fundamental tests done in neuro-ophthalmology. However, up to date, very few quantitative standardized tests of eye movements' quality exist, limiting this assessment to confrontational tests reliant on subjective interpretation. Furthermore, quantitative tests relying on eye movement properties, such as pursuit gain and saccade dynamics are often insufficient to capture the complexity of the underlying disorders and are often (too) long and tiring. In this study, we present SONDA (Standardized Oculomotor and Neurological Disorder Assessment): this test is based on analyzing eye tracking recorded during a short and intuitive continuous tracking task. We tested patients affected by Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and Parkinson's Disease (PD) and find that: (1) the saccadic dynamics of the main sequence alone are not sufficient to separate patients from healthy controls; (2) the combination of spatio-temporal and statistical properties of saccades and saccadic dynamics enables an identification of oculomotor abnormalities in both MS and PD patients. We conclude that SONDA constitutes a powerful screening tool that allows an in-depth evaluation of (deviant) oculomotor behavior in a few minutes of non-invasive testing.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.