Literature DB >> 15790927

Characteristics of the normative database for the Humphrey matrix perimeter.

Andrew John Anderson1, Chris A Johnson, Murray Fingeret, John L Keltner, Paul G D Spry, Michael Wall, John S Werner.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The Humphrey Matrix (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin CA; Welch-Allyn, Skaneateles, NY) is a high-spatial-resolution perimeter that uses frequency-doubling stimuli. It incorporates an efficient test strategy that assumes that age, eccentricity, and test procedure type have only small effects on sensitivity. The results used to create the normative database for the perimeter were examined, to see whether these assumptions were met and to examine the form of the normative data.
METHOD: Visual fields were measured (Matrix 30-2, 24-2, 10-2 and Macula patterns) in >275 subjects judged to be normal by a battery of clinical procedures. The right eye was always tested first.
RESULTS: Sensitivity decreased by approximately 0.7 dB per age decade across all eccentricities; sensitivity decreased with eccentricity, typically by <5 dB at the most peripheral points tested. Although there was no systematic difference in sensitivity between the 30-2 and 24-2 tests, the Macula test sensitivities were typically 1 dB higher than for the 10-2 test. Sensitivity in the left eye was slightly lower than in the right, with the difference being significantly greater in the temporal visual field. In most test locations, the 95% confidence interval of normal sensitivity was approximately 6 dB below the median sensitivity.
CONCLUSIONS: The performance of the test strategy in the Matrix perimeter is appropriately matched to the response characteristics of the normal population. The finding of a spatially nonuniform difference in sensitivity between left and right eyes is attributable to light-adaptation differences between the eyes. This effect is accounted for in the perimeter's normative database.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15790927      PMCID: PMC2581814          DOI: 10.1167/iovs.04-0968

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci        ISSN: 0146-0404            Impact factor:   4.799


  40 in total

1.  The SITA perimetric threshold algorithms in glaucoma.

Authors:  J M Wild; I E Pacey; E C O'Neill; I A Cunliffe
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 4.799

2.  Temporal sensitivity deficits in patients with high-risk drusen.

Authors:  J A Phipps; R H Guymer; A J Vingrys
Journal:  Aust N Z J Ophthalmol       Date:  1999 Jun-Aug

3.  Anatomy of a supergroup: does a criterion of normal perimetric performance generate a supernormal population?

Authors:  Andrew John Anderson; Chris A Johnson
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 4.799

4.  Utility of a dynamic termination criterion in the ZEST adaptive threshold method.

Authors:  Andrew J Anderson
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  Foveal flicker sensitivity discriminates ARM-risk from healthy eyes.

Authors:  M J Mayer; S J Spiegler; B Ward; A Glucs; C B Kim
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 4.799

6.  Perceptual "blankout" of monocular homogeneous fields (Ganzfelder) is prevented with binocular viewing.

Authors:  S J Bolanowski; R W Doty
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  A note of fixation during perimetry.

Authors:  A Heijl; C E Krakau
Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh)       Date:  1977-10

8.  Fatigue effects during a single session of automated static threshold perimetry.

Authors:  C Hudson; J M Wild; E C O'Neill
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 4.799

9.  Why luminance discrimination may be better than detection.

Authors:  D J Lasley; T E Cohn
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1981       Impact factor: 1.886

10.  Sensitivity and specificity of frequency doubling perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic disorders: a comparison with conventional automated perimetry.

Authors:  Michael Wall; Richard K Neahring; Kimberly R Woodward
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 4.799

View more
  29 in total

1.  Estimation of spatial scale across the visual field using sinusoidal stimuli.

Authors:  Kelsey M Keltgen; William H Swanson
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2012-02-02       Impact factor: 4.799

2.  Interpretation of the Humphrey Matrix 24-2 test in the diagnosis of preperimetric glaucoma.

Authors:  Jin A Choi; Na Young Lee; Chan Kee Park
Journal:  Jpn J Ophthalmol       Date:  2009-01-30       Impact factor: 2.447

3.  The visualFields package: a tool for analysis and visualization of visual fields.

Authors:  Iván Marín-Franch; William H Swanson
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-03-14       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Target direction rather than position determines oculomotor expectation in repeating sequences.

Authors:  Andrew J Anderson; Matthew J Stainer; Peter Brotchie; R H S Carpenter
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Accuracy of isolated-check visual evoked potential technique for diagnosing primary open-angle glaucoma.

Authors:  Li Juan Xu; Liang Zhang; Sha Ling Li; Vance Zemon; Gianni Virgili; Yuan Bo Liang
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-07-12       Impact factor: 2.379

Review 6.  Functional assessment of glaucoma: Uncovering progression.

Authors:  Rongrong Hu; Lyne Racette; Kelly S Chen; Chris A Johnson
Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-04-26       Impact factor: 6.048

7.  Linking structure and function in glaucoma.

Authors:  R S Harwerth; J L Wheat; M J Fredette; D R Anderson
Journal:  Prog Retin Eye Res       Date:  2010-03-11       Impact factor: 21.198

8.  Is there evidence for continued learning over multiple years in perimetry?

Authors:  Stuart K Gardiner; Shaban Demirel; Chris A Johnson
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 1.973

9.  Assessment of patient opinions of different clinical tests used in the management of glaucoma.

Authors:  Stuart K Gardiner; Shaban Demirel
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 12.079

10.  Visual contrast sensitivity in Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment, and older adults with cognitive complaints.

Authors:  Shannon L Risacher; Darrell Wudunn; Susan M Pepin; Tamiko R MaGee; Brenna C McDonald; Laura A Flashman; Heather A Wishart; Heather S Pixley; Laura A Rabin; Nadia Paré; Jessica J Englert; Eben Schwartz; Joshua R Curtain; John D West; Darren P O'Neill; Robert B Santulli; Richard W Newman; Andrew J Saykin
Journal:  Neurobiol Aging       Date:  2012-10-18       Impact factor: 4.673

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.