Literature DB >> 17320924

Variability of visual field measurements is correlated with the gradient of visual sensitivity.

Harry J Wyatt1, Mitchell W Dul, William H Swanson.   

Abstract

Conventional static automated perimetry provides important clinical information, but its utility is limited by considerable test-retest variability. Fixational eye movements during testing could contribute to variability. To assess this possibility, it is important to know how much sensitivity change would be caused by a given eye movement. To investigate this, we have evaluated the gradient, the rate at which sensitivity changes with location. We tested one eye each, twice within 3 weeks, of 29 patients with glaucoma, 17 young normal subjects and 13 older normal subjects. The 10-2 test pattern with the SITA Standard algorithm was used to assess sensitivity at locations with 2 degrees spacing. Variability and gradient were calculated at individual test locations. Matrix correlations were determined between variability and gradient, and were substantial for the patients with glaucoma. The results were consistent with a substantial contribution to test-retest variability from small fixational eye movements interacting with visual field gradient. Successful characterization of the gradient of sensitivity appears to require sampling at relatively close spacing, as in the 10-2 test pattern.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17320924      PMCID: PMC2094527          DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2006.12.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vision Res        ISSN: 0042-6989            Impact factor:   1.886


  22 in total

1.  Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry.

Authors:  P G Spry; C A Johnson; A M McKendrick; A Turpin
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 4.799

2.  Response variability in the visual field: comparison of optic neuritis, glaucoma, ocular hypertension, and normal eyes.

Authors:  D B Henson; S Chaudry; P H Artes; E B Faragher; A Ansons
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 4.799

3.  Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, ZEST, and SITA-like strategies, as determined by computer simulation.

Authors:  Andrew Turpin; Allison M McKendrick; Chris A Johnson; Algis J Vingrys
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 4.799

4.  Multisampling suprathreshold perimetry: a comparison with conventional suprathreshold and full-threshold strategies by computer simulation.

Authors:  Paul H Artes; David B Henson; Robert Harper; David McLeod
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.799

5.  Development and evaluation of a linear staircase strategy for the measurement of perimetric sensitivity.

Authors:  Rizwan Malik; William H Swanson; David F Garway-Heath
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2006-06-09       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma.

Authors:  Paul H Artes; Donna M Hutchison; Marcelo T Nicolela; Raymond P LeBlanc; Balwantray C Chauhan
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 4.799

7.  Evaluation of a two-stage neural model of glaucomatous defect: an approach to reduce test-retest variability.

Authors:  Fei Pan; William H Swanson; Mitchell W Dul
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 1.973

8.  Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects.

Authors:  B C Chauhan; C A Johnson
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 4.799

9.  Increased detection rate of glaucomatous visual field damage with locally condensed grids: a comparison between fundus-oriented perimetry and conventional visual field examination.

Authors:  Ulrich Schiefer; Mark Flad; Florian Stumpp; Alexander Malsam; Jens Paetzold; Reinhard Vonthein; P Oliver Denk; Pamela A Sample
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2003-04

10.  Misleading statistical calculations in far-advanced glaucomatous visual field loss.

Authors:  Eytan Z Blumenthal; Ruthy Sapir-Pichhadze
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 12.079

View more
  25 in total

1.  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

2.  Macular function in macular degenerations: repeatability of microperimetry as a potential outcome measure for ABCA4-associated retinopathy trials.

Authors:  Artur V Cideciyan; Malgorzata Swider; Tomas S Aleman; Willam J Feuer; Sharon B Schwartz; Robert C Russell; Janet D Steinberg; Edwin M Stone; Samuel G Jacobson
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2012-02-21       Impact factor: 4.799

3.  Automated perimetry: using gaze-direction data to improve the estimate of scotoma edges.

Authors:  Harry J Wyatt
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2011-07-29       Impact factor: 4.799

4.  Comparing the Nidek MP-1 and Humphrey field analyzer in normal subjects.

Authors:  Jennifer H Acton; Nicholas S Bartlett; Vivienne C Greenstein
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 1.973

5.  Structure and function in patients with glaucomatous defects near fixation.

Authors:  Asifa Shafi; William H Swanson; Mitchell W Dul
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 1.973

6.  Rapid pupil-based assessment of glaucomatous damage.

Authors:  Yanjun Chen; Harry J Wyatt; William H Swanson; Mitchell W Dul
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 1.973

7.  A two-stage neural spiking model of visual contrast detection in perimetry.

Authors:  S K Gardiner; W H Swanson; S Demirel; A M McKendrick; A Turpin; C A Johnson
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2008-07-21       Impact factor: 1.886

8.  Modeling the relative influence of fixation and sampling errors on retest variability in perimetry.

Authors:  T Maddess
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-07-30       Impact factor: 3.117

9.  Improving Visual Field Examination of the Macula Using Structural Information.

Authors:  Giovanni Montesano; Luca M Rossetti; Davide Allegrini; Mario R Romano; David P Crabb
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2018-12-28       Impact factor: 3.283

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.