Literature DB >> 10529927

Kinetic and static fixation methods in automated threshold perimetry.

P Asman1, M Fingeret, A Robin, J Wild, I Pacey, D Greenfield, J Liebmann, R Ritch.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Static fixation is the standard method for stabilizing the eye during automated perimetry. Kinetic fixation is an alternative for fixation control in which the eye follows a moving target. This study was conducted to evaluate the fixation accuracy of static and kinetic fixation perimetry and to determine their ability to detect the absolute scotoma of the physiologic blind spot.
METHODS: The 71 patients with early glaucomatous field loss (mean age 65 years) and 45 control subjects (mean age 57 years) recruited from five clinical sites underwent threshold testing on the Dicon perimeter (kinetic fixation; Vismed, San Diego, CA) and Humphrey Field Analyzer (static fixation). The frequency of Heijl-Krakau fixation catch-trial errors was used as an indicator of fixation accuracy, and the measured sensitivity at the physiologic blind spot was used as an indicator of perimetric accuracy.
RESULTS: In patients with glaucoma, the frequency of fixation errors was significantly greater for kinetic fixation (17.2%) than for static fixation (10.2%). In the control group, the frequency of fixation errors also was significantly greater for kinetic fixation (27.5%) than for static fixation (12.6%). The threshold at the presumed location of the blind spot (15 degrees temporal, 3 degrees inferior from fixation) was 14.8 dB using kinetic fixation versus 4.0 dB with static fixation in patients with glaucoma, and 18.5 dB using kinetic fixation versus 2.5 dB using static fixation in the control group.
CONCLUSION: Relative to static fixation, kinetic fixation was associated with fixation inaccuracy and underestimation of the absolute scotoma at the physiologic blind spot.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10529927

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Glaucoma        ISSN: 1057-0829            Impact factor:   2.503


  6 in total

1.  Effect of different stimulus configurations on the visual evoked potential (VEP).

Authors:  Naveen K Yadav; Diana P Ludlam; Kenneth J Ciuffreda
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-03-20       Impact factor: 2.379

2.  Visual field loss in schizophrenia: evaluation of magnocellular pathway dysfunction in schizophrenic patients and their parents.

Authors:  Carolina Pelegrini Barbosa Gracitelli; Fabiana Benites Vaz de Lima; Rodrigo A Bressan; Augusto Paranhos Junior
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-05-29

3.  Comparison of Humphrey Field Analyzer and imo visual field test results in patients with glaucoma and pseudo-fixation loss.

Authors:  Hiroyasu Goukon; Kazunori Hirasawa; Masayuki Kasahara; Kazuhiro Matsumura; Nobuyuki Shoji
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-11-07       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Advanced Vision Analyzer-Virtual Reality Perimeter: Device Validation, Functional Correlation and Comparison with Humphrey Field Analyzer.

Authors:  Priya Narang; Amar Agarwal; Maheswari Srinivasan; Ashvin Agarwal
Journal:  Ophthalmol Sci       Date:  2021-06-25

5.  Gaze tracker parameters have little association with visual field metrics of intrasession frontloaded SITA-Faster 24-2 visual field results.

Authors:  Jack Phu; Michael Kalloniatis
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2022-05-22       Impact factor: 3.992

6.  Reducing Spatial Uncertainty Through Attentional Cueing Improves Contrast Sensitivity in Regions of the Visual Field With Glaucomatous Defects.

Authors:  Jack Phu; Michael Kalloniatis; Sieu K Khuu
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2018-03-23       Impact factor: 3.283

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.