Literature DB >> 30029253

Differences in the Relation Between Perimetric Sensitivity and Variability Between Locations Across the Visual Field.

Stuart K Gardiner1.   

Abstract

Purpose: Perimetric sensitivities become more variable with glaucomatous functional loss. This study examines the extent to which this relation varies between locations, and whether this can be predicted by eccentricity-related differences in spatial summation.
Methods: Longitudinal series of visual fields from standard automated perimetry were obtained from participants with suspected or extant glaucoma. For each location in the 24-2 visual field, heterogeneous fixed-effects models were fit to the data, assuming that variability increased exponentially as sensitivity decreased. The predicted variability at each location was calculated when sensitivity was either 30 dB or 25 dB.
Results: Variability significantly increased with damage at all 52 locations. When sensitivity was 30 dB, variability increased with eccentricity, with P = 0.0003. The average SD was 1.54 dB at the four most central locations, versus 1.74 dB at the most peripheral locations. When sensitivity was 25 dB, variability did not vary predictably with eccentricity, with P = 0.340. The average SD was 2.36 dB at the four central locations, versus 2.24 dB at the most peripheral locations. Conclusions: The relation between sensitivity and variability differed by eccentricity. Among healthy locations, variability was lower centrally, where the stimulus size is larger than Ricco's area, than peripherally. Among damaged locations, variability did not systematically vary with eccentricity. This could be because Ricco's area expands in glaucoma, such that stimuli were now smaller than this area at all locations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30029253      PMCID: PMC6054428          DOI: 10.1167/iovs.18-24303

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


  47 in total

1.  Spatial summation in human cone mechanisms from 0 degrees to 20 degrees in the superior retina.

Authors:  V J Volbrecht; E E Shrago; B E Schefrin; J S Werner
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 2.129

2.  Sensitivity loss in early glaucoma can be mapped to an enlargement of the area of complete spatial summation.

Authors:  Tony Redmond; David F Garway-Heath; Margarita B Zlatkova; Roger S Anderson
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2010-07-29       Impact factor: 4.799

3.  Static perimetry: strategies.

Authors:  H Bebie; F Fankhauser; J Spahr
Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh)       Date:  1976-07

4.  What reduction in standard automated perimetry variability would improve the detection of visual field progression?

Authors:  Andrew Turpin; Allison M McKendrick
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2011-05-17       Impact factor: 4.799

5.  Size threshold perimetry performs as well as conventional automated perimetry with stimulus sizes III, V, and VI for glaucomatous loss.

Authors:  Michael Wall; Carrie K Doyle; Trina Eden; K D Zamba; Chris A Johnson
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2013-06-07       Impact factor: 4.799

6.  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

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Differential light threshold. Short- and long-term fluctuation in patients with glaucoma, normal controls, and patients with suspected glaucoma.

Authors:  J Flammer; S M Drance; M Zulauf
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1984-05

10.  Factors that influence standard automated perimetry test results in glaucoma: test reliability, technician experience, time of day, and season.

Authors:  Francisco G Junoy Montolio; Christiaan Wesselink; Marijke Gordijn; Nomdo M Jansonius
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2012-10-09       Impact factor: 4.799

View more
  9 in total

1.  Point-wise variability of threshold sensitivity of 24-2 and 10-2 visual fields.

Authors:  Aparna Rao; Harsha L Rao; Debananda Padhy
Journal:  Taiwan J Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-05-26

2.  Quantification of Visual Field Variability in Glaucoma: Implications for Visual Field Prediction and Modeling.

Authors:  Alessandro Rabiolo; Esteban Morales; Abdelmonem A Afifi; Fei Yu; Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi; Joseph Caprioli
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 3.283

3.  Predicting Global Test-Retest Variability of Visual Fields in Glaucoma.

Authors:  Eun Young Choi; Dian Li; Yuying Fan; Louis R Pasquale; Lucy Q Shen; Michael V Boland; Pradeep Ramulu; Siamak Yousefi; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Sarah R Wellik; Jonathan S Myers; Peter J Bex; Tobias Elze; Mengyu Wang
Journal:  Ophthalmol Glaucoma       Date:  2020-12-11

4.  Long- and Short-Term Variability of Perimetry in Glaucoma.

Authors:  Stuart K Gardiner; William H Swanson; Steven L Mansberger
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2022-08-01       Impact factor: 3.048

5.  Moving Stimulus Perimetry: A New Functional Test for Glaucoma.

Authors:  Stuart K Gardiner; Steven L Mansberger
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2022-10-03       Impact factor: 3.048

6.  Time Lag Between Functional Change and Loss of Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer in Glaucoma.

Authors:  Stuart K Gardiner; Steven L Mansberger; Brad Fortune
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2020-11-02       Impact factor: 4.799

7.  Are you sure? The relationship between response certainty and performance in visual detection using a perimetry-style task.

Authors:  Phillip Bedggood; Aiza Ahmad; Adam Chen; Rachael Lim; Sadiqa Maqsudi; Andrew Metha
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2020-08-03       Impact factor: 2.240

8.  Real-World Analysis of the Aging Effects on Visual Field Reliability Indices in Humans.

Authors:  Tomoki Shirakami; Tetsuro Omura; Hiroki Fukuda; Ryo Asaoka; Masaki Tanito
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-12-09       Impact factor: 4.241

9.  Inter-Eye Association of Visual Field Defects in Glaucoma and Its Clinical Utility.

Authors:  Bettina Teng; Dian Li; Eun Young Choi; Lucy Q Shen; Louis R Pasquale; Michael V Boland; Pradeep Ramulu; Sarah R Wellik; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Jonathan S Myers; Siamak Yousefi; Thao Nguyen; Yuying Fan; Hui Wang; Peter J Bex; Tobias Elze; Mengyu Wang
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 3.048

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.