A comparison of perimetric results with the Medmont and Humphrey perimeters

British Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 87, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 690-694

  Landers, John ^a,c   Sharma, A ^a   Goldberg, I ^a   Graham, S ^a,b  

^a Eye Associates   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c Park House   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; FEMALE; FREQUENCY ANALYSIS; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR HYPERTENSION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REPRODUCIBILITY; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TARGET CELL; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT; VISUAL STIMULATION;

AREA UNDER CURVE; FEMALE; FLICKER FUSION; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERIMETRY; ROC CURVE; SENSORY THRESHOLDS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 0038018330     PISSN: 00071161     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.87.6.690     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Beck RW, Berstrom TJ, Lichter PR. A clinical comparison of visual field testing with a new automated perimeter, the Humphrey field analyzer, and the Goldmann perimeter. Ophthalmology 1985;92:77-82.
2. Katz J, Quigley HA, Sommer A. Repeatability of the glaucoma hemifield test in automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1995;36:1658-64.
3. McCrary JA, Feigon J. Computerized perimetry in neuro-ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 1979;86:1287-301.
4. Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Balestrery FG. Suprathreshold static perimetry in glaucoma and other optic nerve disease. Ophthalmology 1979;86:1278-86.
5. Johnson CA. Role of automation in new instrumentation. Optom Vis Sci 1993;70:288-98.
6. Quigley HA, Addicks EM, Green R. Optic nerve damage in human glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1982;100:135-46.
7. Harwerth RS, Carter-Dawson L, Shen F, et al. Ganglion cell losses underlying visual field defects from experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999;40:2242-50.
8. Demirel S, Johnson CA. Short wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP) in ophthalmic practice. J Am Opt Assoc 1996;67:451-6.
9. Johnson CA, Adams AJ, Casson EJ, et al. Blue-on-yellow perimetry can predict the development of glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol 1993;111:645-50.
10. Johnson CA, Cioffi GA, Van Buskirk EM. Frequency doubling technology perimetry using a 24-2 stimulus presentation pattern. Optom Vis Sci 1999;76:571.
11. Brusini P, Busatto P. Frequency doubling perimetry in glaucoma early diagnosis. Acta Ophthalmol (Scand) 1998;227:23-4.
12. Landers J, Goldberg I, Graham S. A comparison of short wavelength automated perimetry with frequency doubling perimetry for the early detection of visual field loss in ocular hypertension. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2000;28:248-52.
13. Sharma AK, Goldberg I, Graham SL, et al. Comparison of the Humphrey Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) and full threshold strategies. J Glaucoma 2000;9:20-7.
14. Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, et al. A new generation of algorithms for computerised threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol (Scand) 1997;75:368-75.
15. Sample PA, Johnson CA, Haegerstrom-Portnoy G, et al. Optimum parameters for short-wavelength automated perimetry. J Glaucoma 1996;5:375-83.
16. Johnson CA. Early losses of visual function in glaucoma. Optom Vis Sci 1995;72:359-70.
17. De Monasterio FM. Asymmetry of on- and off- pathways of blue-sensitive cones of the retina of macaques. Brain Res 1979;166:39-48.
18. Vingrys AJ, Helfrich KA. The Opticom M600: a new LED automated perimeter. Clin Exp Opt 1990;73:3-17.
19. Pye D, Herse P, Nguyen H, et al. Conversion factor for comparison of data from Humphrey and Medmont automated perimeters. Clin Exp Opt 1999;82:11-13.
20. McKendrick AM, Vingrys AJ, Badcock DR, et al. Visual field losses in subjects with migraine headaches. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000;41:1239-47.
21. Glovinsky Y, Quigley HA, Dunkelberger GR. Retinal ganglion cell loss is size dependent in experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1991;32:484-91.
22. Chaturvedi N, Hedley-Whyte ET, Dreyer EB. Lateral geniculate nucleus in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1993;116:182-8.
23. Maddess T, Hemmi JM, James AC. Evidence for spatial aliasing effects in the y-like cells of the magnocellular visual pathway. Vis Res 1992;38:1843-59.
24. Burnstein Y, Ellish N, Magbalov M, et al. Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry with Humphrey visual field analysis in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;129:328-33.
25. Sponsel WE, Argango S, Trigo Y, et al. Clinical classification of glaucomatous visual field loss by frequency doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 1998;125:830-6.
26. Maddess T, Hemmi JM, James AC. Evidence for spatial aliasing effects in the y-like cells of the magnocellular visual pathway. Vis Res 1992;38:1843-59.
27. Kaplan E, Shapley RM. X and Y cells in the lateral geniculate nucleus of macaque monkeys. J Physiol 1982;330:125-43.
28. Maddess T, Henry GH. Performance of nonlinear visual units in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Clin Vis Sci 1992;7:371-83.
29. Graham SL, Drance SM, Chauhan BC, et al. Comparison of psychophysical and electrophysiological testing in early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1996;37:2651-62.
30. Casson EJ, Johnson CA, Shapiro LR. Longitudinal comparison of temporal-modulation perimetry with white-on-white and blue-on-yellow perimetry in ocular hypertension and early glaucoma. J Opt Soc Am 1993;10:1792-806.