Literature DB >> 11167290

Effect of localized defocus on detection thresholds for different sized targets in the fovea and periphery.

R S Anderson1, D R McDowell, F A Ennis.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Previous studies of optical blur in perimetry have measured the effect of foveal refractive error on peripheral perimetric detection thresholds. Since peripheral refractive error can be significantly different from that of the fovea we wished to remove the ambiguity of previous results by correcting the actual peripheral refractive error first before adding blur.
METHODS: We measured detection thresholds in the fovea and at 30 degrees in the horizontal temporal field in two trained observers. Peripheral refractive error was determined at each location and thresholds measured at the same locations for stimuli ranging in size from 0.2 to 6.4 degrees and refractive errors between +/-4.00 diopters.
RESULTS: Foveal thresholds increased immediately with increasing refractive error, particularly for smaller stimulus sizes. At 30 degrees, thresholds for smaller stimuli were less affected by defocus initially and then increased more sharply. Larger stimuli were relatively unaffected by defocus such that when stimulus size reached 1.6 degrees there was little or no increase in threshold for refractive error between +/-4.00 diopters.
CONCLUSIONS: Peripheral refractive error, largely forgotten by perimetrists, has a significant effect on performance, particularly for smaller stimuli. Differences in foveal vs peripheral viewing can be explained by differences in ganglion cell receptive field sizes.

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11167290     DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0420.2001.079001060.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol Scand        ISSN: 1395-3907


  8 in total

1.  Blur-resistant perimetric stimuli.

Authors:  Douglas G Horner; Mitchell W Dul; William H Swanson; Tiffany Liu; Irene Tran
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 1.973

2.  Choice of Stimulus Range and Size Can Reduce Test-Retest Variability in Glaucomatous Visual Field Defects.

Authors:  William H Swanson; Douglas G Horner; Mitchell W Dul; Victor E Malinovsky
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 3.283

3.  Optimizing contrast sensitivity perimetry for clinical use.

Authors:  Mitchell W Dul
Journal:  J Ophthalmic Vis Res       Date:  2013-01

4.  A comparison of Goldmann III, V and spatially equated test stimuli in visual field testing: the importance of complete and partial spatial summation.

Authors:  Jack Phu; Sieu K Khuu; Barbara Zangerl; Michael Kalloniatis
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 3.117

5.  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.  The Effect of Simulated Visual Field Loss on Optokinetic Nystagmus.

Authors:  Soheil M Doustkouhi; Philip R K Turnbull; Steven C Dakin
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2020-02-21       Impact factor: 3.283

7.  Two-Dimensional, High-Resolution Peripheral Refraction in Adults with Isomyopia and Anisomyopia.

Authors:  Sidi Wang; Zhenghua Lin; Xiaoyun Xi; Yiqiu Lu; Lun Pan; Xiaoning Li; Pablo Artal; Weizhong Lan; Zhikuan Yang
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 4.799

8.  Neutralizing Peripheral Refraction Eliminates Refractive Scotomata in Tilted Disc Syndrome.

Authors:  Jack Phu; Henrietta Wang; Sephora Miao; Lydia Zhou; Sieu K Khuu; Michael Kalloniatis
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 1.973

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.