Literature DB >> 2196038

Ganzfeld blankout occurs in bowl perimetry and is eliminated by translucent occlusion.

P S Fuhr1, T A Hershner, K M Daum.   

Abstract

An intermittent darkening of the visual field (ganzfeld "blankout") is perceived during bowl perimetry. Since this may be a form of rivalry, we hypothesized that occluding the nontested eye with a translucent occluder may eliminate the phenomenon. Ten normal subjects underwent visual field testing with both a translucent and an opaque occluder. Eight of the 10 reported darkening to occur with the opaque patch, while none reported it with the translucent occluder. The darkening occurred with a mean latency of 10.9 seconds, occupied 34.4% of the time, and on average occurred 3.25 times per minute. With the translucent occluder, retest threshold variability was 18.8% less and sensitivity was increased by 0.7 dB. The elimination of this darkening using translucent occluders in bowl perimetry will allow reduced variability and increased sensitivity and comfort.

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2196038     DOI: 10.1001/archopht.1990.01070090085045

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0003-9950


  10 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.  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

3.  A limited role for suppression in the central field of individuals with strabismic amblyopia.

Authors:  Brendan T Barrett; Gurvinder K Panesar; Andrew J Scally; Ian E Pacey
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-23       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Variability in monocular and binocular fixation during standard automated perimetry.

Authors:  Kazunori Hirasawa; Kaoru Kobayashi; Asuka Shibamoto; Houmi Tobari; Yuki Fukuda; Nobuyuki Shoji
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-21       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Comparison of monocular sensitivities measured with and without occlusion using the head-mounted perimeter imo.

Authors:  Akemi Wakayama; Chota Matsumoto; Yoriko Ayato; Yoshikazu Shimomura
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-01-17       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Comparison of head-mounted perimeter (imo®) and Humphrey Field Analyzer.

Authors:  Tairo Kimura; Chota Matsumoto; Hiroki Nomoto
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-03-14

7.  Does eye examination order for standard automated perimetry matter?

Authors:  Stephen R Kelly; Susan R Bryan; David P Crabb
Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-02-22       Impact factor: 3.761

8.  Visual Field Testing with Head-Mounted Perimeter 'imo'.

Authors:  Chota Matsumoto; Sayaka Yamao; Hiroki Nomoto; Sonoko Takada; Sachiko Okuyama; Shinji Kimura; Kenzo Yamanaka; Makoto Aihara; Yoshikazu Shimomura
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-26       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Comparison of central visual sensitivity between monocular and binocular testing in advanced glaucoma patients using imo perimetry.

Authors:  Tomoyuki Kumagai; Takuhei Shoji; Yuji Yoshikawa; Izumi Mine; Junji Kanno; Hirokazu Ishii; Akane Saito; Sho Ishikawa; Itaru Kimura; Kei Shinoda
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-03-09       Impact factor: 4.638

10.  Effect of Sensitivity Disparity Between the Two Eyes on Pointwise Monocular Sensitivity Under Binocular Viewing in Patients With Glaucoma.

Authors:  Akemi Wakayama; Hiroki Nomoto; Yasutaka Chiba; Chota Matsumoto; Shunji Kusaka
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 2.290

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.