Literature DB >> 6487115

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

R K Parrish, J Schiffman, D R Anderson.   

Abstract

The SD of static visual threshold ranges from 0.12 log units near fixation to 0.41 log units 30 degrees from fixation. Among 60 points tested, most persons have at least one point that tests 0.5 log units less sensitive than the adjacent points, simulating a scotoma 0.5 log units deep. With automated kinetic perimetry, the SD of isopter position is 2.6 degrees to 5.5 degrees, with the greatest variation appearing in the temporal field where the slope is flatter and the isopters are more peripheral. More than 10% of the points show an inward deviation of 5 degrees or more compared with their neighboring points. Retesting of the deviant points is required to distinguish an artifact caused by variable responsiveness from true localized defects. Judgments about progression also require that the accuracy of the isopter position or threshold determination be taken into account.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1984        PMID: 6487115     DOI: 10.1001/archopht.1984.01040031217021

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


  17 in total

1.  On weighted visual field indices.

Authors:  A Heijl; G Lindgren; J Olsson; P Asman
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Static threshold variability in the peripheral visual field in normal subjects.

Authors:  W O Young; W C Stewart; H Hunt; H Crosswell
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 3.117

3.  Topography of the frequency doubling perimetry visual field compared with that of short wavelength and achromatic automated perimetry visual fields.

Authors:  J Landers; A Sharma; I Goldberg; S Graham
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 4.638

4.  K-Train--a computer-based, interactive training program with an incorporated certification system for practicing kinetic perimetry: evaluation of acceptance and success rate.

Authors:  U Schiefer; K Nowomiejska; E Krapp; J Pätzold; C A Johnson
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-03-21       Impact factor: 3.117

5.  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

6.  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

7.  Normal visual fields measured with Octopus Program G1. I. Differential light sensitivity at individual test locations.

Authors:  M Zulauf
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 3.117

8.  Analytic approaches to the interpretation of automated threshold perimetric data for the diagnosis of early glaucoma.

Authors:  A Sommer; C Duggan; C Auer; H Abbey
Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc       Date:  1985

9.  Clinical evaluation of a multi-fixation campimeter for the detection of glaucomatous visual field loss.

Authors:  E Mutlukan; B E Damato; J L Jay
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 4.638

10.  Visual field in hysteria-reliability of visual field by Goldmann perimetry.

Authors:  H Ohkubo
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1989-01       Impact factor: 2.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.