Literature DB >> 25074042

Modeling the relative influence of fixation and sampling errors on retest variability in perimetry.

T Maddess1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Our previous studies have shown that in standard automated perimetry (SAP) undersampling occurs if sensitivity varies across a visual field faster than the Nyquist rate (Nq) for the standard sampling interval of 6°. This undersampling was shown to be a major source of test-retest variability. This study first tests some of the assumptions of the undersampling idea, and then determines the relative contributions to test-retest variability of normal eye movements and undersampling.
METHODS: In all models fixational jitter was at normal levels. The first part investigates the effects of the jitter on the Fourier spectra of fields, and stimulus size effects. In the second part fields are smoothed in six gradations up to and beyond the point where no undersampling could occur. The spatial smoothing gradations covered nil to < Nq/4. For each smoothing level the resulting retest variability was determined for each of 11 bands of scotoma depth (0 to -28.5 dB).
RESULTS: As is commonly reported, and as undersampling predicts, retest variability was largest for deeper scotoma depths. When smoothing suppressed all undersampling effects, the inter-quartile range of the residual retest variability averaged only 2.3 ± 0.33 dB, much smaller than for unsmoothed fields (p < 0.003). For the five deepest scotoma depth bands (range, -16.5 to -28.5 dB) retest variability was smaller by 6.0 ± 0.5 dB (p < 0.0005).
CONCLUSIONS: Retest variability appears in large part to be driven by undersampling. In real fields, the remaining variance would come from fixation errors and physiological sources.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25074042     DOI: 10.1007/s00417-014-2751-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0721-832X            Impact factor:   3.117


  32 in total

1.  Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast strategies.

Authors:  Paul H Artes; Aiko Iwase; Yuko Ohno; Yoshiaki Kitazawa; Balwantray C Chauhan
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 4.799

2.  Combined spatial, contrast, and temporal functions perimetry in mild glaucoma and ocular hypertension.

Authors:  M González-Hernández; J García-Feijoó; M Sanchez Mendez; M González de la Rosa
Journal:  Eur J Ophthalmol       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.597

3.  Fundus perimetry with the Micro Perimeter 1 in normal individuals: comparison with conventional threshold perimetry.

Authors:  Christina Springer; Stefan Bültmann; Hans E Völcker; Klaus Rohrschneider
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 12.079

4.  Variability of visual field measurements is correlated with the gradient of visual sensitivity.

Authors:  Harry J Wyatt; Mitchell W Dul; William H Swanson
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2007-02-23       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields.

Authors:  A Heijl; A Lindgren; G Lindgren
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1989-08-15       Impact factor: 5.258

6.  Increase of the short-term fluctuation of the differential light threshold around a physiologic scotoma.

Authors:  I O Haefliger; J Flammer
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1989-04-15       Impact factor: 5.258

7.  Spectral consequences of photoreceptor sampling in the rhesus retina.

Authors:  J I Yellott
Journal:  Science       Date:  1983-07-22       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Clinical evaluation of frequency doubling technology perimetry using the Humphrey Matrix 24-2 threshold strategy.

Authors:  P G D Spry; H M Hussin; J M Sparrow
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 4.638

9.  Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma.

Authors:  Paul H Artes; Donna M Hutchison; Marcelo T Nicolela; Raymond P LeBlanc; Balwantray C Chauhan
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 4.799

Review 10.  Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma.

Authors:  B C Chauhan; D F Garway-Heath; F J Goñi; L Rossetti; B Bengtsson; A C Viswanathan; A Heijl
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-01-22       Impact factor: 4.638

View more
  8 in total

1.  Performance of the 10-2 and 24-2 Visual Field Tests for Detecting Central Visual Field Abnormalities in Glaucoma.

Authors:  Zhichao Wu; Felipe A Medeiros; Robert N Weinreb; Linda M Zangwill
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-08-10       Impact factor: 5.258

2.  Exploring Test-Retest Variability Using High-Resolution Perimetry.

Authors:  Takuya Numata; Ted Maddess; Chota Matsumoto; Sachiko Okuyama; Shigeki Hashimoto; Hiroki Nomoto; Yoshikazu Shimomura
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2017-10-04       Impact factor: 3.283

3.  Correlation of Central Versus Peripheral Macular Structure-Function With Acuity in Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

Authors:  Faran Sabeti; Jo Lane; Emilie M F Rohan; Bhim B Rai; Rohan W Essex; Elinor McKone; Ted Maddess
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2021-02-05       Impact factor: 3.283

4.  Comparison of the Humphrey Field Analyzer and Photopic Negative Response of Focal Macular Electroretinograms in the Evaluation of the Relationship Between Macula Structure and Function.

Authors:  Kazuyuki Hirooka; Kenji Yokoyama; Kana Tokumo; Yoshiaki Kiuchi
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-02-26

5.  Comparison of unifocal, flicker, and multifocal pupil perimetry methods in healthy adults.

Authors:  Brendan L Portengen; Giorgio L Porro; Saskia M Imhof; Marnix Naber
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2022-08-01       Impact factor: 2.004

6.  Rapid Objective Testing of Visual Function Matched to the ETDRS Grid and Its Diagnostic Power in Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

Authors:  Bhim B Rai; Faran Sabeti; Corinne F Carle; Emilie M Rohan; Josh P van Kleef; Rohan W Essex; Richard C Barry; Ted Maddess
Journal:  Ophthalmol Sci       Date:  2022-03-18

7.  Comparison of Macular Integrity Assessment (MAIA ™), MP-3, and the Humphrey Field Analyzer in the Evaluation of the Relationship between the Structure and Function of the Macula.

Authors:  Kazuyuki Hirooka; Kana Misaki; Eri Nitta; Kaori Ukegawa; Shino Sato; Akitaka Tsujikawa
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-14       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Clustered Volleys Stimulus Presentation for Multifocal Objective Perimetry.

Authors:  Corinne F Carle; Andrew C James; Faran Sabeti; Maria Kolic; Rohan W Essex; Chris Shean; Rhiannon Jeans; Aiasha Saikal; Alice Licinio; Ted Maddess
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 3.283

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.