PURPOSE: To develop perimetric stimuli that are resistant to the effects of peripheral defocus. METHODS: One eye each was tested on subjects free of eye disease. Experiment 1 assessed spatial frequency, testing 12 subjects at eccentricities from 2 to 7 degrees using blur levels from 0 to 3 diopters (D) for two (Gabor) stimuli (spatial SD, 0.5 degrees; spatial frequencies, 0.5 and 1.0 cycles per degree [cpd]). Experiment 2 assessed stimulus size, testing 12 subjects at eccentricities from 4 to 7 degrees using blur levels 0 to 6 D for two Gaussians with SD of 0.5 and 0.25 degrees and a 0.5-cpd Gabor with SD of 0.5 degrees. Experiment 3 tested 13 subjects at eccentricities from fixation to 27 degrees using blur levels 0 to 6 D for Gabor stimuli at 56 locations; the spatial frequency ranged from 0.14 to 0.50 cpd with location, and SD was scaled accordingly. RESULTS: In experiment 1, blur by 3 D caused a small decline in log contrast sensitivity for the 0.5-cpd stimulus (mean ± SE, 0.09 ± 0.08 log units) and a larger (t = 7.7, p < 0.0001) decline for the 1.0-cpd stimulus (0.37 ± 0.13 log units). In experiment 2, blur by 6 D caused minimal decline for the larger Gaussian, by 0.17 ± 0.16 log units, and larger (t > 4.5, p < 0.001) declines for the smaller Gaussian (0.33 ± 0.16 log units) and the Gabor (0.36 ± 0.18 log units). In experiment 3, blur by 6 D caused declines by 0.27 ± 0.05 log units for eccentricities from 0 to 10 degrees, by 0.20 ± 0.04 log units for eccentricities from 10 to 20 degrees, and 0.13 ± 0.03 log units for eccentricities from 20 to 27 degrees. CONCLUSIONS: Experiments 1 and 2 allowed us to design stimuli for experiment 3 that were resistant to effects of peripheral defocus.
PURPOSE: To develop perimetric stimuli that are resistant to the effects of peripheral defocus. METHODS: One eye each was tested on subjects free of eye disease. Experiment 1 assessed spatial frequency, testing 12 subjects at eccentricities from 2 to 7 degrees using blur levels from 0 to 3 diopters (D) for two (Gabor) stimuli (spatial SD, 0.5 degrees; spatial frequencies, 0.5 and 1.0 cycles per degree [cpd]). Experiment 2 assessed stimulus size, testing 12 subjects at eccentricities from 4 to 7 degrees using blur levels 0 to 6 D for two Gaussians with SD of 0.5 and 0.25 degrees and a 0.5-cpd Gabor with SD of 0.5 degrees. Experiment 3 tested 13 subjects at eccentricities from fixation to 27 degrees using blur levels 0 to 6 D for Gabor stimuli at 56 locations; the spatial frequency ranged from 0.14 to 0.50 cpd with location, and SD was scaled accordingly. RESULTS: In experiment 1, blur by 3 D caused a small decline in log contrast sensitivity for the 0.5-cpd stimulus (mean ± SE, 0.09 ± 0.08 log units) and a larger (t = 7.7, p < 0.0001) decline for the 1.0-cpd stimulus (0.37 ± 0.13 log units). In experiment 2, blur by 6 D caused minimal decline for the larger Gaussian, by 0.17 ± 0.16 log units, and larger (t > 4.5, p < 0.001) declines for the smaller Gaussian (0.33 ± 0.16 log units) and the Gabor (0.36 ± 0.18 log units). In experiment 3, blur by 6 D caused declines by 0.27 ± 0.05 log units for eccentricities from 0 to 10 degrees, by 0.20 ± 0.04 log units for eccentricities from 10 to 20 degrees, and 0.13 ± 0.03 log units for eccentricities from 20 to 27 degrees. CONCLUSIONS: Experiments 1 and 2 allowed us to design stimuli for experiment 3 that were resistant to effects of peripheral defocus.
Authors: Paul H Artes; Marcelo T Nicolela; Terry A McCormick; Raymond P LeBlanc; Balwantray C Chauhan Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: T Aung; P J Foster; S K Seah; S P Chan; W K Lim; H M Wu; A T Lim; L L Lee; S J Chew Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Ronald S Harwerth; M L J Crawford; Laura J Frishman; Suresh Viswanathan; Earl L Smith; Louvenia Carter-Dawson Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 21.198
Authors: William H Swanson; Mitchell W Dul; Douglas G Horner; Tiffany Liu; Irene Tran Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-01-20 Impact factor: 4.799
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
Authors: William H Swanson; Victor E Malinovsky; Mitchell W Dul; Rizwan Malik; Julie K Torbit; Bradley M Sutton; Douglas G Horner Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Muhammed S Alluwimi; William H Swanson; Victor E Malinovsky; Brett J King Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 3.283