Literature DB >> 8339949

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

M Dengler-Harles1, J M Wild, M D Cole, E C O'Neill.   

Abstract

The various stimulus parameters offered by two standard automated projection perimeters [Humphrey Field Analyser 630 (HFA) and Octopus 201], namely, stimulus size and location and the interaction of adaptation level and stimulus duration, were compared in a sample of 20 patients attending a glaucoma clinic using the visual field indices mean defect (MD), loss variance (LV), short-term fluctuation (SF) and corrected loss variance (CLV). LV and SF were greater with Octopus program 32 compared with Octopus program G1 (P < 0.02). No difference in the indices was found between stimulus sizes I and III for HFA program 30-2. MD was greater for program 30-2 compared with program 32 (P < 0.002) when expressed in terms of log (L/delta L) whereas LV (P < 0.02) and SF (P < 0.02) were greater for program 32. All differences were considered to be negligible in the clinical sense.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8339949     DOI: 10.1007/bf00919030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0721-832X            Impact factor:   3.117


  42 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.  [Examination of spatial summation with static and kinetic stimuli marks by the method of quantitative light perception perimetry].

Authors:  F FANKHAUSER; T SCHMIDT
Journal:  Ophthalmologica       Date:  1958 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.250

3.  Use of a central 10 degrees field and size V stimulus to evaluate and monitor small central islands of vision in end stage glaucoma.

Authors:  A H Zalta
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1991-03       Impact factor: 4.638

4.  The influence of decreased retinal illumination on automated perimetric threshold measurements.

Authors:  D K Heuer; D R Anderson; W J Feuer; M G Gressel
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1989-12-15       Impact factor: 5.258

5.  The influence of simulated light scattering on automated perimetric threshold measurements.

Authors:  D K Heuer; D R Anderson; R W Knighton; W J Feuer; M G Gressel
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1988-09

6.  Effect of defocus on visual field measurement.

Authors:  D A Atchison
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 3.117

7.  The use of different-sized stimuli in automated perimetry.

Authors:  J T Wilensky; J R Mermelstein; H G Siegel
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1986-06-15       Impact factor: 5.258

8.  The effect of background intensity on the components of fluctuation as determined by threshold-related automated perimetry.

Authors:  H H Crosswell; W C Stewart; M A Cascairo; H H Hunt
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 3.117

9.  [Computer perimetry of glaucomatous visual field defects at different stimulus sizes (author's transl)].

Authors:  E Gramer; D Kontić; G K Krieglstein
Journal:  Ophthalmologica       Date:  1981       Impact factor: 3.250

10.  The detection of paracentral scotomas with varying grids in computed perimetry.

Authors:  D King; S M Drance; G R Douglas; K Wijsman
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1986-04
View more
  1 in total

1.  Comparison of the visual field test of Glaufield Lite with Humphrey Field Analyser.

Authors:  Geeta Behera; Shradha Vijay Waghmare; Amala Ramasamy
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-08-10       Impact factor: 2.029

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.