Literature DB >> 20531515

Fatigue effects in automated perimetry.

C A Johnson, C W Adams, R A Lewis.   

Abstract

The influence of fatigue and related factors on automated perimetric testing was evaluated in both eyes of sixteen normal observers and sixteen patients with early-to-moderate visual field loss using a Digilab 750 automated perimeter and a customized test procedure. False positive rate, false negative rate, and detection sensitivity at 5,10,15, and 20 degrees eccentricity were measured in 1.5-rain intervals throughout a 21-min visual field examination. Half of the normal observers and patients with visual field loss were given a briefrest(1.5-min) midway through each visual field exam to determine whether this would reduce fatigue effects. Our findings revealed that patients displayed considerably higher average false positive and false negative rates than normal observers. However, neither the patients nor normal observers demonstrated any consistent changes in false positive rate or false negative rate as a function of testing duration. In contrast, both normal observers and patients showed an average decrease in sensitivity as a function of increasing test duration with the magnitude of the time-dependent sensitivity loss becoming greater with increasing stimulus eccentricity. Patients demonstrated a larger time-dependent sensitivity loss than normal observers, averaging ~4dB at 20 degrees eccentricity. The introduction of a brief pause midway through the test procedure appeared to reduce the time-dependent sensitivity loss for the second half of the test procedure, especially for greater eccentricities.

Entities:  

Year:  1988        PMID: 20531515     DOI: 10.1364/AO.27.001030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Opt        ISSN: 1559-128X            Impact factor:   1.980


  16 in total

1.  Characteristics of the normative database for the Humphrey matrix perimeter.

Authors:  Andrew John Anderson; Chris A Johnson; Murray Fingeret; John L Keltner; Paul G D Spry; Michael Wall; John S Werner
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 4.799

2.  Stabilization and comparison of TOP and Bracketing perimetric strategies using a threshold spatial filter.

Authors:  Manuel Gonzalez de la Rosa; Marta Gonzalez-Hernandez; Tinguaro Diaz Aleman; Manuel Sanchez Mendez
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2007-02-07       Impact factor: 3.117

3.  Baseline alterations in blue-on-yellow normal perimetric sensitivity.

Authors:  J M Wild; I D Moss
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 3.117

4.  Effect of a variability-adjusted algorithm on the efficiency of perimetric testing.

Authors:  Stuart K Gardiner
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2014-05-06       Impact factor: 4.799

5.  Evaluation of FASTPAC: a new strategy for threshold estimation with the Humphrey Field Analyser.

Authors:  J G Flanagan; I D Moss; J M Wild; C Hudson; L Prokopich; D Whitaker; E C O'Neill
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 3.117

6.  Pattern noise (PANO): a new automated functional glaucoma test.

Authors:  Sylvain El-Khoury; Thomas Hannen; Diana Carmen Dragnea; Faustin Ngounou; Paul-Rolf Preußner
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 2.031

7.  Comparing glaucoma progression on 24-2 and 10-2 visual field examinations.

Authors:  Harsha L Rao; Viquar U Begum; Deepa Khadka; Anil K Mandal; Sirisha Senthil; Chandra S Garudadri
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-05-15       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Assessing Visual Fields in Patients with Retinitis Pigmentosa Using a Novel Microperimeter with Eye Tracking: The MP-3.

Authors:  Nozomi Igarashi; Masato Matsuura; Yohei Hashimoto; Kazunori Hirasawa; Hiroshi Murata; Tatsuya Inoue; Obata Ryo; Makoto Aihara; Ryo Asaoka
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-11-28       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Intersession test-retest variability of conventional and novel parameters using the MP-1 microperimeter.

Authors:  Evan N Wong; David A Mackey; William H Morgan; Fred Kuanfu Chen
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-12-23

10.  Incorporating Spatial Models in Visual Field Test Procedures.

Authors:  Nikki J Rubinstein; Allison M McKendrick; Andrew Turpin
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2016-03-11       Impact factor: 3.283

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.