Literature DB >> 4028920

Manipulation of sensitivity in visual field investigation.

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

Abstract

Sophistication of computer software and flexibility of stimulus and background luminance parameters in static perimeter design offer the opportunity for increased information in the assessment of the visual field. Relationships between dynamic ranges and resulting sensitivity gradients in a group of 10 normal 21 year old subjects using the Octopus automated perimeter, the Dicon Autoperimeter 2000 and the Friedmann VFA II are assessed. Inadequacies in the use of normative data to assess the visual field are noted. Implications for the use of dynamic range/sensitivity gradient relationships in visual field assessment without reliance on normative data are discussed.

Mesh:

Year:  1985        PMID: 4028920     DOI: 10.1007/bf00159165

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


  12 in total

1.  Visual field analyser and threshold.

Authors:  E L Greve
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1971-10       Impact factor: 4.638

2.  The resistance of selected hyperacuity configurations to retinal image degradation.

Authors:  R A Williams; J M Enoch; E A Essock
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1984-04       Impact factor: 4.799

3.  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

4.  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

5.  A method of presenting full-field images with minimal distortion.

Authors:  N Drasdo
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1984       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Dethecting glaucomatous damage with the Friedmann analyzer compared with te Goldmann perimeter and evaluation of stereoscopic photographs of the optic disk.

Authors:  K A Batko; J L Anctil; D R Anderson
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1983-04       Impact factor: 5.258

7.  The working threshold approach to Friedmann visual field analyser screening.

Authors:  I F Gutteridge
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 3.117

8.  Contrast sensitivity in the presence of a glare light. Theoretical concepts and preliminary clinical studies.

Authors:  L E Paulsson; J Sjöstrand
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1980-04       Impact factor: 4.799

9.  Automatic (Octopus) and manual (Goldmann) perimetry in glaucoma.

Authors:  U Schmied
Journal:  Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1980

10.  Evaluation of the Friedmann Visual Field Analyser Mark II. Part 1. Results from a normal population.

Authors:  D B Henson; S M Dix; A C Oborne
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1984-07       Impact factor: 4.638

View more
  2 in total

1.  Stimulus investigative range in the perimetry of retinitis pigmentosa: some preliminary findings.

Authors:  J M Wood; J M Wild; P A Good; S J Crews
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1986-09-30       Impact factor: 2.379

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

Authors:  J M Wild; J M Wood; J G Flanagan; P A Good; S J Crews
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1986-02-28       Impact factor: 2.379

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.