How did your training under Herschel Leibowitz, PhD,
influence you?
Dr. Leibowitz had a strong interest in applying basic laboratory
findings to real-world problems, and his students
(me included) were strongly affected by his goal. We ventured
into a variety of applied areas, including human factors,
instrument design, aviation and traffic safety, hypnosis,
sources of experimental bias, and the like. I chose ophthalmic
research and became involved in
the development of diagnostic tests and
the evaluation of ocular and neurologic
diseases such as glaucoma. I also maintain
an interest, however, in the visual
requirements for different occupations,
traffic and aviation safety, and related
areas. Dr. Leibowitz provided me with
the ability to see the big picture and the
practical value of research as opposed to
specific details that have a modest impact
on society and are of interest to
only a few other academicians.
How did you become interested in the psychophysics of
visual fields?
Visual field testing was quite a mystery to me when I
was first introduced to it in 1975. During my initial work
in this area, however, I also realized that most of the psychophysical
principles employed were between 100 and
150 years old. It occurred to me that the proper application
of more recent psychophysical procedures and the
incorporation of more recent knowledge of basic ophthalmic,
neurologic, and neurophysiologic findings
would improve the utility of this diagnostic procedure.
Today, many new approaches to visual field testing, new
sensitivity estimation procedures, and a number of techniques
for statistical and mathematical analysis have
been incorporated into visual field testing
procedures—all within an automated
framework that is being used worldwide.
If anything, my interest in the psychophysics
of visual fields has increased
rather than diminished.
What is the best way in which to tailor
the visual field to match a patient's
needs?
Perhaps the most important aspect of
visual field testing is being able to select a
testing method that provides the most
useful and meaningful clinical information. A key component
of this process is constructive interaction between
the clinical practitioner, the visual field examiner, and the
patient. A dynamic, flexible, and interactive approach is
needed. For example, patients with severe disease or multiple medical conditions, young children, and adults with
limited attention spans and cognitive skills require a different
type of testing procedure than a typical highly
functioning and conscientious patient. I do not believe
that one size fits all when it comes to visual field testing.
The procedure of choice requires good listening skills on
the part of the examiner.
What will visual field testing be like in 10 years?
Throughout my career, I have been unable to accurately
predict what I would be doing from a research standpoint
10 or even 5 years hence, although it has seemed
to work out well most of the time. I believe that predicting
the future of new diagnostic procedures and treatments
represents a similar challenge. Serendipity is a part
of medical research, as are the paradigm shifts that have
been described by Thomas Kuhn.1 Visual field testing has
reached a saturation point, and a new paradigm is needed.
Although the specific answer is still uncertain, I feel
that clinical investigators will develop visual field testing
procedures that are more objective, efficient, accurate,
precise, and diagnostic. I further expect that these procedures
will be meaningfully different from those that are
currently available. Techniques that can simultaneously
capture multiple features (structure, function, metabolism,
neuroprotection, and other factors) would represent
a major advance.
You are rumored to have played the piano for a living
while in school and are said to have perfect pitch. What
place does music hold in your life, and has it helped
your career?
Music continues to be an important part of my life,
and I am still playing on a solo basis, in a rock band, and
in a jazz band. Like research, music has a certain structure,
but it also provides an opportunity for me to be
creative.
By the time I was halfway through my college training, all laboratory experiments had predetermined outcomes, and a person reached either a correct or an incorrect answer. At that point, I took a laboratory course in visual perception, and the projects had controversial and uncertain solutions. This intrigued me and has remained my primary reason for conducting ophthalmic research. A transition from classical piano training to jazz and rock and roll improvisations was a similar experience for me. Evaluating perfect pitch in music and assessing the diagnosis and treatment of glaucoma provide me with many challenges and opportunities, and I consider them both with enthusiasm.
- Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1962.
