Literature DB >> 3956369

The interpretation of the differential threshold in the central visual field.

J M Wild, J M Wood, J G Flanagan, P A Good, S J Crews.   

Abstract

Computer assisted perimetry has revolutionised the investigation of the visual field. Experience of central field assessment with the Octopus Automated Perimeter shows that sensitivity recorded with target size 3 across all age groups can frequently be greater than the published normative values. Use of the latter values can therefore provide a serious underestimation of field loss. Inter-individual variation in sensitivity is found within and between age groups. The limitations associated with the use of the measurement error to define abnormality and the additional problems of hypernormal thresholds and resolution of the blind spot are discussed. It is suggested that methods should be developed to evaluate sensitivity on an intra-individual basis.

Mesh:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3956369     DOI: 10.1007/bf00229130

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


  17 in total

1.  Influences of training and fatigue on the continuous recording of a visual differential threshold.

Authors:  M HAIDER; N F DIXON
Journal:  Br J Psychol       Date:  1961-08

2.  Some characteristics of peripheral visual performance.

Authors:  F N LOW
Journal:  Am J Physiol       Date:  1946-07-01

3.  Peripheral visual acuity.

Authors:  F N LOW
Journal:  AMA Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1951-01

4.  Problems related to the design of automatic perimeters.

Authors:  F Fankhauser
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1979-09-17       Impact factor: 2.379

5.  Dynamic range and stray light. An estimate of the falsifying effects of stray light in perimetry.

Authors:  F Fankhauser; H Haeberlin
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1980-12-15       Impact factor: 2.379

6.  The qualitative comparative analysis of the visual field using computer assisted, semi-automated and manual instrumentation: III. Clinical analysis.

Authors:  J G Flanagan; J M Wild; D A Barnes; B A Gilmartin; P A Good; S J Crews
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1984-12-15       Impact factor: 2.379

7.  The qualitative comparative analysis of the visual field using computer assisted, semi-automated and manual instrumentation: II. Statistical analysis.

Authors:  J M Wild; J G Flanagan; D A Barnes; B A Gilmartin; P A Good; S J Crews
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1984-12-15       Impact factor: 2.379

8.  Static and kinetic visual field testing. Reproducibility in normal volunteers.

Authors:  R K Parrish; J Schiffman; D R Anderson
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1984-10

9.  Time changes of contrast thresholds during automatic perimetry.

Authors:  A Heijl
Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh)       Date:  1977-08

10.  Changes in differential threshold in patients with glaucoma during prolonged perimetry.

Authors:  A Heijl; S M Drance
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1983-08       Impact factor: 4.638

View more
  1 in total

1.  The influence of stimulus parameters on the visual field indices by automated projection perimetry.

Authors:  M Dengler-Harles; J M Wild; M D Cole; E C O'Neill
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 3.117

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.