Literature DB >> 3060338

Stimulus configuration and the format of the normal sensitivity gradient.

J G Flanagan1, J M Wild, J M Wood.   

Abstract

The study investigated the effect of three distinct types of stimulus configuration on the format of the normal sensitivity gradient derived by computer assisted perimetry namely: projected stimuli; light emitting diodes (LED) with the same luminance as the perimeter bowl; and 'black hole' LED stimuli. The study comprised two separate parts: 22 age matched subjects were examined with the Dicon AP3000 and with the Topcon SBP-1000 along the 15 degrees-195 degrees meridian of the visual field of the right eye; a further 22 subjects matched for age and gender were examined along the same meridian in an identical manner with the Dicon AP2025 and with the Humphrey Field Analyser 620. The various stimulus parameters were chosen in order to provide uniformity as far as possible between the instruments. The Topcon evoked greater relative sensitivity than the Dicon at all eccentricities although the rate of change of sensitivity with increase in peripheral angle varied between the two instruments at different locations. Centrally the Dicon profile followed more closely that of Humphrey stimulus size II and beyond 5 degrees that of stimulus size I. The Topcon profile followed that of the Humphrey stimulus size II both centrally and peripherally in spite of being geometrically closer to the size III stimulus. It is proposed that the variations in the sensitivity gradient are not exclusively related to stimulus size and spatial summation; the accommodative stimulus of the 'black hole' LED stimuli, stimulus colour and thresholding strategy may all be contributing factors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3060338     DOI: 10.1007/bf00162750

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0012-4486            Impact factor:   2.379


  5 in total

1.  [The optimal conditions for the study of spatial summation with fixed stimuli according to the method of quantitative light-perception perimetry].

Authors:  F FANKHAUSER; T SCHMIDT
Journal:  Ophthalmologica       Date:  1960-05       Impact factor: 3.250

2.  The black hole effect in perimetry.

Authors:  J M Britt; R P Mills
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1988-05       Impact factor: 4.799

3.  Calibration of the Dicon Auto Perimeter 2000 compared with that of the Goldmann perimeter.

Authors:  W M Hart; M O Gordon
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1983-12       Impact factor: 5.258

4.  Effects of target size and eccentricity on visual detection and resolution.

Authors:  C A Johnson; J L Keltner; F Balestrery
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1978       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  Spatial summation and the cortical magnification of perimetric profiles.

Authors:  J M Wild; J M Wood; J G Flanagan
Journal:  Ophthalmologica       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 3.250

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.