Literature DB >> 8484168

Threshold variation in automated perimetry.

W C Stewart1, H H Hunt.   

Abstract

A physiologic fluctuation in threshold levels exists in automated perimetry, which is greater in glaucoma and ocular hypertensive patients than in normal subjects. Fluctuation increases with greater eccentricity from fixation and in areas of reduced retinal sensitivity. Other factors related to automated perimetry testing potentially may influence threshold fluctuation including: a learning effect, reliability, pupil size, age, and the mode of stimulus presentation. Statistical software may aid in analyzing both the single field and the changes between successive fields. However, statistical programs cannot replace physician judgment, and all factors that may influence threshold levels should be considered when interpreting automated visual fields.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8484168     DOI: 10.1016/0039-6257(93)90065-f

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0039-6257            Impact factor:   6.048


  9 in total

1.  A novel Bayesian adaptive method for mapping the visual field.

Authors:  Pengjing Xu; Luis Andres Lesmes; Deyue Yu; Zhong-Lin Lu
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2019-12-02       Impact factor: 2.240

2.  The volume of tumor mass and visual field defect in patients with pituitary macroadenoma.

Authors:  Jung Pil Lee; In Won Park; Yun Suk Chung
Journal:  Korean J Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-01-17

3.  The Frontloading Fields Study: The Impact of False Positives and Seeding Point Errors on Visual Field Reliability When Using SITA-Faster.

Authors:  Jack Phu; Michael Kalloniatis
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 3.283

4.  Gaze tracker parameters have little association with visual field metrics of intrasession frontloaded SITA-Faster 24-2 visual field results.

Authors:  Jack Phu; Michael Kalloniatis
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2022-05-22       Impact factor: 3.992

5.  Comparison of Macular Integrity Assessment (MAIA ™), MP-3, and the Humphrey Field Analyzer in the Evaluation of the Relationship between the Structure and Function of the Macula.

Authors:  Kazuyuki Hirooka; Kana Misaki; Eri Nitta; Kaori Ukegawa; Shino Sato; Akitaka Tsujikawa
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-14       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Reducing Spatial Uncertainty Through Attentional Cueing Improves Contrast Sensitivity in Regions of the Visual Field With Glaucomatous Defects.

Authors:  Jack Phu; Michael Kalloniatis; Sieu K Khuu
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2018-03-23       Impact factor: 3.283

7.  Individual Test Point Fluctuations of Macular Sensitivity in Healthy Eyes and Eyes With Age-Related Macular Degeneration Measured With Microperimetry.

Authors:  Mirella Telles Salgueiro Barboni; Zsuzsanna Szepessy; Dora Fix Ventura; János Németh
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 3.283

8.  Mapping the Contrast Sensitivity of the Visual Field With Bayesian Adaptive qVFM.

Authors:  Pengjing Xu; Luis A Lesmes; Deyue Yu; Zhong-Lin Lu
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2020-07-07       Impact factor: 4.677

9.  Differences in Static and Kinetic Perimetry Results are Eliminated in Retinal Disease when Psychophysical Procedures are Equated.

Authors:  Jack Phu; Michael Kalloniatis; Henrietta Wang; Sieu K Khuu
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 3.283

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.