Literature DB >> 24370832

Assessing spatial and temporal properties of perimetric stimuli for resistance to clinical variations in retinal illumination.

William H Swanson1, Mitchell W Dul, Douglas G Horner, Tiffany Liu, Irene Tran.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To develop perimetric stimuli for which sensitivities are more resistant to reduced retinal illumination than current clinical perimeters.
METHODS: Fifty-four people free of eye disease were dilated and tested monocularly. For each test, retinal illumination was attenuated with neutral density (ND) filters, and a standard adaptation model was fit to derive mean and SEM for the adaptation parameter (NDhalf). For different stimuli, t-tests on NDhalf were used to assess significance of differences in consistency with Weber's law. Three experiments used custom Gaussian-windowed contrast sensitivity perimetry (CSP). Experiment 1 used CSP-1, with a Gaussian temporal pulse, a spatial frequency of 0.375 cyc/deg (cpd), and SD of 1.5°. Experiment 1 also used the Humphrey Matrix perimeter, with the N-30 test using 0.25 cpd and 25 Hz flicker. Experiment 2 used a rectangular temporal pulse, SDs of 0.25° and 0.5°, and spatial frequencies of 0.0 and 1.0 cpd. Experiment 3 used CSP-2, with 5-Hz flicker, SDs from 0.5° to 1.8°, and spatial frequencies from 0.14 to 0.50 cpd.
RESULTS: In Experiment 1, CSP-1 was more consistent with Weber's law (NDhalf ± SEM = 1.86 ± 0.08 log unit) than N-30 (NDhalf = 1.03 ± 0.03 log unit; t > 9, P < 0.0001). All stimuli used in Experiments 2 and 3 had comparable consistency with Weber's law (NDhalf = 1.49-1.69 log unit; t < 2).
CONCLUSIONS: Perimetric sensitivities were consistent with Weber's law when higher temporal frequencies were avoided.

Entities:  

Keywords:  perimetry; retinal illumination; temporal vision

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24370832      PMCID: PMC3900271          DOI: 10.1167/iovs.13-11640

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci        ISSN: 0146-0404            Impact factor:   4.799


  24 in total

1.  An automatic perimeter for glaucoma visual field screening and control. Construction and clinical cases.

Authors:  A Heijl; C E Krakau
Journal:  Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1975-10-17

2.  Effects of blur and repeated testing on sensitivity estimates with frequency doubling perimetry.

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

3.  Modeling the dynamics of light adaptation: the merging of two traditions.

Authors:  N Graham; D C Hood
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  Estimation of spatial scale across the visual field using sinusoidal stimuli.

Authors:  Kelsey M Keltgen; William H Swanson
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2012-02-02       Impact factor: 4.799

5.  Aging of the human lens.

Authors:  J Pokorny; V C Smith; M Lutze
Journal:  Appl Opt       Date:  1987-04-15       Impact factor: 1.980

6.  The robustness of various forms of perimetry to different levels of induced intraocular stray light.

Authors:  Roger S Anderson; Tony Redmond; D Rodney McDowell; Karen M M Breslin; Margarita B Zlatkova
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2009-04-30       Impact factor: 4.799

7.  The influence of decreased retinal illumination on automated perimetric threshold measurements.

Authors:  D K Heuer; D R Anderson; W J Feuer; M G Gressel
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1989-12-15       Impact factor: 5.258

8.  The influence of simulated light scattering on automated perimetric threshold measurements.

Authors:  D K Heuer; D R Anderson; R W Knighton; W J Feuer; M G Gressel
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1988-09

9.  Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field.

Authors:  A Heijl; G Lindgren; J Olsson
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1987-11

10.  Blur-resistant perimetric stimuli.

Authors:  Douglas G Horner; Mitchell W Dul; William H Swanson; Tiffany Liu; Irene Tran
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 1.973

View more
  7 in total

1.  Individual differences in the shape of the nasal visual field.

Authors:  William H Swanson; Mitchell W Dul; Douglas G Horner; Victor E Malinovsky
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 1.886

2.  Contrast sensitivity perimetry and clinical measures of glaucomatous damage.

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

3.  Contrast sensitivity perimetry data from adults free of eye disease.

Authors:  William H Swanson; Mitchell W Dul; Douglas G Horner; Victor E Malinovsky
Journal:  Data Brief       Date:  2016-06-21

4.  Between-Subject Variability in Healthy Eyes as a Primary Source of Structural-Functional Discordance in Patients With Glaucoma.

Authors:  Bright S Ashimatey; William H Swanson
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 4.799

5.  Comparison of defect depths for sinusoidal and circular perimetric stimuli in patients with glaucoma.

Authors:  William H Swanson; Brett J King
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 3.117

6.  A Novel Stimulus to Improve Perimetric Sampling within the Macula in Patients with Glaucoma.

Authors:  Muhammed S Alluwimi; William H Swanson; Brett J King
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 2.106

7.  The Effect of Cataract on Early Stage Glaucoma Detection Using Spatial and Temporal Contrast Sensitivity Tests.

Authors:  Johann Klein; Barbara K Pierscionek; Jan Lauritzen; Karin Derntl; Andrzej Grzybowski; Margarita B Zlatkova
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-08       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.