Literature DB >> 2023737

Pseudo-loss of fixation in automated perimetry.

O Sanabria1, W J Feuer, D R Anderson.   

Abstract

During automated perimetry with the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer, field examinations are labeled unreliable whenever the reported rate of fixation loss is 20% or more. The reported rate of fixation loss results in part from times when the patient's gaze drifts from the fixation point during the examination, but also in part from technical artifacts such as faulty initial localization of the blind spot or false-positive responses by the patient. It was found that technical artifacts caused nearly half of the instances in which a field examination had a reported fixation loss rate of greater than 20%. It was also found that the perimetrist can prevent the artifacts, with the result that the frequency of field examinations labeled as having excessive fixation loss fell from 26% to 14%.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 2023737     DOI: 10.1016/s0161-6420(91)32338-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmology        ISSN: 0161-6420            Impact factor:   12.079


  10 in total

Review 1.  Vision.

Authors:  J F Acheson; M D Sanders
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 10.154

2.  Influence of missed catch trials on the visual field in normal subjects.

Authors:  F Fankhauser
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 3.117

3.  Relationship between visual acuity and visual field and its reproducibility in patients with retinitis pigmentosa.

Authors:  Ryo Asaoka; Manabu Miyata; Akio Oishi; Yuri Fujino; Hiroshi Murata; Keiko Azuma; Ryo Obata; Tatsuya Inoue
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2022-04-20       Impact factor: 3.775

4.  Effect of a patient training video on visual field test reliability.

Authors:  H Sherafat; P G D Spry; A Waldock; J M Sparrow; J P Diamond
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 4.638

5.  The effect of pilocarpine on the glaucomatous visual field.

Authors:  A R Webster; A J Luff; C R Canning; A R Elkington
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 4.638

6.  Predicting Global Test-Retest Variability of Visual Fields in Glaucoma.

Authors:  Eun Young Choi; Dian Li; Yuying Fan; Louis R Pasquale; Lucy Q Shen; Michael V Boland; Pradeep Ramulu; Siamak Yousefi; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Sarah R Wellik; Jonathan S Myers; Peter J Bex; Tobias Elze; Mengyu Wang
Journal:  Ophthalmol Glaucoma       Date:  2020-12-11

Review 7.  The value of visual field testing in the era of advanced imaging: clinical and psychophysical perspectives.

Authors:  Jack Phu; Sieu K Khuu; Michael Yapp; Nagi Assaad; Michael P Hennessy; Michael Kalloniatis
Journal:  Clin Exp Optom       Date:  2017-06-22       Impact factor: 2.742

8.  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

9.  The association between structure-function relationships and cognitive impairment in elderly glaucoma patients.

Authors:  Megumi Honjo; Jiro Numaga; Tadashi Hara; Ryo Asaoka
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  The usefulness of the Deep Learning method of variational autoencoder to reduce measurement noise in glaucomatous visual fields.

Authors:  Ryo Asaoka; Hiroshi Murata; Shotaro Asano; Masato Matsuura; Yuri Fujino; Atsuya Miki; Masaki Tanito; Shiro Mizoue; Kazuhiko Mori; Katsuyoshi Suzuki; Takehiro Yamashita; Kenji Kashiwagi; Nobuyuki Shoji
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-05-12       Impact factor: 4.379

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.