Literature DB >> 2642703

The effect of perimetric experience in normal subjects.

A Heijl1, G Lindgren, J Olsson.   

Abstract

Two groups of normal subjects were submitted to repeated automated static threshold perimetry. Perimetric results were strongly affected by the level of experience in some subjects; in the majority, however, the effect of experience was small. Initial field tests often showed high numbers of depressed points. Sensitivity increased with perimetric training, particularly between the first sessions. Those subjects who improved most started low, gradually approaching normal levels with experience. Learning effects were more pronounced peripherally than paracentrally and "untrained" fields characteristically showed concentric contraction with numerous points with low sensitivity peripherally. An important practical conclusion is to allow repeated testing of all inexperienced patients in whom initial fields do not agree with clinical findings. A chart showing a concentrically narrowed field should be viewed with particular suspicion. Furthermore, a single initial field may constitute an inadequate baseline for clinical follow-up.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2642703     DOI: 10.1001/archopht.1989.01070010083032

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


  46 in total

1.  Transcranial direct current stimulation affects visual perception measured by threshold perimetry.

Authors:  Antje Kraft; Jasper Roehmel; Manuel C Olma; Sein Schmidt; Kerstin Irlbacher; Stephan A Brandt
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-11-03       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Are rates of vision loss in patients in English glaucoma clinics slowing down over time? Trends from a decade of data.

Authors:  T Boodhna; L J Saunders; D P Crabb
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 3.775

3.  Comparison of global indices and test duration between two visual field analyzers: Octopus 300 and Topcon SBP-3000.

Authors:  Jose Javier Garcia-Medina; Manuel Garcia-Medina; Vicente Zanon-Moreno; Carlos Garcia-Maturana; Francisco Javier Cruz-Espinosa; Maria Dolores Pinazo-Duran
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-01-25       Impact factor: 3.117

4.  The learning and fatigue effect in automated perimetry.

Authors:  G Marra; J Flammer
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 3.117

5.  Evaluation of Visual Field and Imaging Outcomes for Glaucoma Clinical Trials (An American Ophthalomological Society Thesis).

Authors:  David F Garway-Heath; Ana Quartilho; Philip Prah; David P Crabb; Qian Cheng; Haogang Zhu
Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc       Date:  2017-08-22

6.  Temporal visual field in glaucoma: a re-evaluation in the automated perimetry era.

Authors:  G E Pennebaker; W C Stewart
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 3.117

7.  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

8.  Correlation of a scanning laser derived oedema index and visual function following grid laser treatment for diabetic macular oedema.

Authors:  C Hudson; J G Flanagan; G S Turner; H C Chen; L B Young; D McLeod
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 4.638

9.  Image processing of computerised visual field data.

Authors:  F W Fitzke; D P Crabb; A I McNaught; D F Edgar; R A Hitchings
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 4.638

10.  Is there evidence for continued learning over multiple years in perimetry?

Authors:  Stuart K Gardiner; Shaban Demirel; Chris A Johnson
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 1.973

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.