Age-dependent 'error rates' in automatic screen campimetry with bright and dark stimuli;Altersabhangige 'fehlerquoten' bei der automatischen rasterkampimetrie mit hellen und dunklen stimuli

Ophthalmologe

Volumn 96, Issue 12, 1999, Pages 813-821

  Wabbels, Bettina ^a   Schiefer, Ulrich ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Automated perimetry; False negative answers; False positive answers; Normal subjects; Video campimetry

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; BRIGHTNESS; COMPUTER SYSTEM; DARKNESS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL STIMULATION; AGING; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; INSTRUMENTATION; MALE; MICROCOMPUTER; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PERIMETRY; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; REVIEW;

ADULT; AGED; AGING; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MICROCOMPUTERS; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PERIMETRY; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 0033253557     PISSN: 0941293X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s003470050501     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Bickler-Bluth M, Trick GL, Kolker AE, Cooper DG (1989) Assessing the utility of reliability indices for automated visual fields. Testing ocular hypertensives. Ophthalmology 96: 616-619
2. Birt CM, Shin DH, Samudrala V, Hughes BA, Kim C, Lee D (1997) Analysis of reliability indices from Humphrey visual fields tests in an urban glaucoma population. Ophthalmology 104: 1126-1130
3. Cascairo MA, Stewart WC, Sutherland SE (1991) Influence of missed catch trials on the visual field in normal subjects. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 229: 437-441
4. Chauhan BC, Mohanas RN, Whelan JH, McCormick TA (1993) Comparison of reliability indices in conventional and high-pass resolution perimetry. Ophthalmology 100: 1089-1094
5. Fankhauser F (1993) Influence of missed catch trials on the visual field in normal subjects. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 231: 58-59
6. Flammer J (1993) Theoretische Grundlagen 34-59. In: Gloor B (Hrsg) Perimetrie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der automatischen Perimetrie. Enke, Stuttgart
7. Hardage L, Stamper RL (1989) Reliability indices for automated visual fields [letter]. Ophthalmology 96: 1810-1811
8. Johnson CA, Chauhan BC, Shapiro LR (1992) Properties of staircase procedures for estimating thresholds in automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 33: 2966-2974
9. Johnson CA, Nelson-Quigg JM (1993) A prospective three-year study of response properties of normal subjects and patients during automated perimetry. Ophthalmology 100: 269-274
10. Johnson CA, Cioffi GA, Drance SM, Gaasterland D, Mills RP, Ashburn F, Hnik P, Van Coevorden RE (1997) A multicenter comparison study of the Humphrey Field Analyzer I and the Humphrey Field Analyzer II. Ophthalmology 104: 1910-1917
11. Katz J, Sommer A (1988) Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests. Arch Ophthalmol 106: 1252-1254
12. Katz J, Sommer A (1990) Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss: The effect of patient reliability. Ophthalmology 97: 1032-1037
13. Katz J, Sommer A, Witt K (1991) Reliability of visual field results over repeated testing. Ophthalmology 98: 70-75
14. Lachenmayr BJ, Vivell PMO (1992) 1. Grundlagen der Perimetrie. In: Perimetrie. Thieme, Stuttgart, S 2-57
15. Lachenmayr BJ, Kojetinski S, Ostermaier N, Angstwurm K, Vivell PMO, Schaumburger M (1994) The different effects of aging on normal sensitivity in flicker and light sense perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 35: 2741-2748
16. Lee M, Zulauf M, Hoffman D, Caprioli J (1991) A new reliability index for threshold automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci [Suppl.] 21: 1105
17. Lee M, Zulauf M, Caprioli J (1994) The influence of patient reliability on visual field outcome. Am J Ophthalmol 117: 756-761
18. Lutz S, Dietrich TJ, Benda N, Selig B, Schiefer U, Daum I (1996) Automatische Rasterperimetrie mit verschiedenen Abfragetechniken. Ophthalmologe 93 [Suppl]: 151
19. Nelson-Quigg JM, Twelker JD, Johnson CA (1989) Response properties of normal observers and patients during automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol 107: 1612-1615
20. Reynolds M, Steart WC, Sutherland S (1990) Factors that influence the prevalence of positive catch trials in glaucoma patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 228: 338-341
21. Safran AB, Laffi GL, Bullinger A, Viviani P, de Weisse C, Désangles D, Tschopp C, Mermoud C (1996) Feasibility of automated visual field examination in children between 5 and 8 years of age. Br J Ophthalmol 80: 515-518
22. Wabbels B, Schiefer U, Treutwein B, Benda N, Stercken-Sorrenti G (1995) Automated perimetry with bright and dark stimuli. German J Ophthalmol 4: 217-221
23. Zulauf M, Caprioli J, Boeglin RJ, Lee M (1992) Number of stimuli as a reliability parameter in perimetry. Ger J Ophthalmol 1: 86-90
24. Zulauf M (1994) Normal visual fields measured with the Octopus program G1: I. Differential light sensitivity at individual test localisations. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 232: 509-515