Rarebit and frequency-doubling technology perimetry in children and young adults

Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica

Volumn 83, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 670-677

  Martin, Lene ^a  

^a ST ERIK S EYE HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Children; Frequency doubling perimetry; Rarebit perimetry

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CHILD CARE; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; FEMALE; FREQUENCY DOUBLING PERIMETRY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RAREBIT PERIMETRY; RELIABILITY; SCHOOL CHILD; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT; VISUAL STIMULATION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGING; CHILD; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PERIMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 29244474589     PISSN: 13953907     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0420.2005.00569.x     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Anderson AJ & Johnson CA (2002): Mechanisms isolated by frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43: 398-401.
2. Anderson RS & O'Brian C (1997): Psychophysical evidence for selective loss of M ganglion cells in glaucoma. Vision Res 37: 1079-1083.
3. Bayer AU, Maag KP & Erb C (2002): Detection of optic neuropathy in glaucomatons eyes with normal standard visual fields using a test battery of short-wavelength automated perimetry and pattern electroretinography. Ophthalmology 109: 1350-1361.
4. Becker K & Semes L (2003): The reliability of frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimetry in a paediatric population. Optometry 74: 173-199.
5. Blumenthal EZ, Haddad A, Horani A & Anteby I (2004): The reliability of frequency-doubling perimetry in young children. Ophthalmology 111: 435-439.
6. Brown SM, Bradley JC, Monhart MJ & Baker DK (2005): Normal values for Octopus tendency-oriented perimetry in children 7 through 13 years old. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2005, April 15 (Epub ahead of print).
7. Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Parisi L & Zeppieri M (2005): Probing glaucoma visual damage by rarebit perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol 89: 180-118.
8. Burnstein Y, Ellish NJ, Magbalon M & Higginbotham EJ (2000): Comparison of frequency-doubling perimetry with Humphrey visual field analysis in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol 129: 328-333.
9. Cello KE, Nelson-Quigg JM & Johnson CA (2000): Frequency-doubling technology perimetry for detection of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 129: 314-322.
10. Dacey DM (1993): The mosaic of midget ganglion cells in the human retina. J Neurosci Dec 13: 5334-5355.
11. De Souza EC, Berezovsky A, Morales PH, de Arruda Mello PA, de Oliveira Bonomo PP & Salamao SR (2000): Visual field defects in children with congenital glaucoma. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 37: 266-272.
12. Donahue SP & Porter A (2001): SITA visual field testing in children. J AAPOS 5: 114-117.
13. Frisén L (2002): New sensitive window on abnormal spatial vision: rarebit probing. Vision Res 42: 1931-1939.
14. Frisén L (2003): Spatial vision in visually asymptomatic subjects at high risk for multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiat 74: 1145-1147.
15. Johnson CA & Samuels SJ (1997): Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 38: 413-425.
16. Johnson CA, Wall M & Murray F et al. (1998): A Primer for Frequency Doubling Technology. Dublin, California: Humphrey Systems.
17. Kerrigan-Baumrind LA, Quigley HA, Pease ME, Kerrigan DF & Mitchell RS (2000): Number of ganglion cells in glaucoma eyes compared with threshold visual field tests in the same persons. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41: 741-748.
18. Marraffa M, Pucci V, Marchini G, Morselli S, Belluci R & Bonomi L (1995): HPR perimetry and Humphrey perimetry in glaucomatous children. Doc Ophthalmol 189: 383-386.
19. Martin L, Ley D, Marsal K & Hellström A (2004): Visual function in young adults following intrauterine growth restriction. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 41: 212-218.
20. Martin L & Wanger P (2004): New perimetric techniques: a comparison between rarebit and frequency-doubling technology perimetry in normal subjects and glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma 13: 268-272.
21. Martin L, Wanger P, Vancea L & Gothlin B (2003): Concordance of high-pass resolution perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry results in glaucoma: no support for selective ganglion cell damage. J Glaucoma 12: 40-44.
22. McKendrick AM, Anderson AJ, Johnson CA & Fortune B (2003): Appearance of the frequency-doubling stimulus in normal subjects and patients with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44: 1111-1116.
23. Medeiros FA, Sample PA & Weinreb RN (2004): Frequency-doubling technology perimetry abnormalities as predictors of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol May 137: 863-871.
24. Merigan WH & Katz LM (1990): Spatial resolution across the macaque retina. Vision Res 30: 985-991.
25. Merigan WH, Katz LM & Maunsell JH (1991): The effects of parvocellular lateral geniculate lesions on the acuity and contrast sensitivity of macaque monkeys. J Neurosci 11: 994-1001.
26. Milano G, Rossi GCM, Djeugoue A & Clemente A (2001): Comparison of achromatic automated perimetry, short-wavelength automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technique perimetry in the diagnosis of early glaucoma. In: Wall M (ed). Perimetry Update 2000/2001. The Hague, the Netherlands: Kugler Publications 217-224.
27. Morales J & Brown SM (2001): The feasibility of short automated static perimetry in children. Ophthalmology 108: 157-162.
28. Nesher R, Norman G, Stern Y, Gorck L, Epstein E, Raz Y & Assia E (2004): Frequency-doubling technology threshold testing in the paediatric group. J Glaucoma 13: 278-282.
29. Pammer K & Wheatley C (2001): Isolating the M(y)-cell response in dyslexia using the spatial frequency-doubling illusion. Vision Res 41: 2139-2147.
30. Rarebit Visual Field Test Handbook 2000 (included in the RB program).
31. Quinn GE, Fea AM & Minguini N (1991): Visual fields in 4- to 10-year-old children using Goldmann and double-arc perimeters. J Pediatr Opthalmol Strabismus 28: 314-319.
32. Safran AB, Laffi GL, Bullinger A, Viviani P, de Weisse C, Desangles 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.
33. Sample PA, Boswoth CF, Blumenthal EZ, Girkin C & Weinreb RN (2000): Visual function-specific perimetry for indirect comparison of different ganglion cell populations in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41: 1783-1790.
34. Scharre JE, Cotter SA, Block SS & Kelly SA (1990): Normative contrast sensitivity data for young children. Optom Vis Sci 67: 826-832.
35. Tschopp C, Safran AB, Viviani P, Bullinger A, Reicherts M & Mermoud C (1998a): Automated visual field examination in children aged 5-8 years. Part I. Experimental validation of a testing procedure. Vision Res 38: 2203-2210.
36. Tschopp, C, Safran AB, Viviani P, Bullinger A, Reicherts M & Mermoud C (1998b): Automated visual field examination in children aged 5-8 years. Part II. Normative values. Vision Res 38: 2211-2218.
37. Tschopp C, Viviani P, Reicherts M, Bullinger A, Rudaz N, Mermoud C & Safran AB (1999): Does visual sensitivity improve between 5 and 8 years? A study of automated visual field examination. Vision Res 39: 1107-1119.
38. Wall M, Kutzko KE & Chauhan BC (2002): The relationship of visual threshold and reaction time to visual field eccentricity with conventional automated perimetry. Vision Res 42: 781-787.
39. Wassle H & Boycott BB (1991): Functional architecture of the mammalian retina. [Review.] Physiol Rev 71 (2): 447-480.
40. White AJR, Sun H, Swanson WH & Lee BB (2002): An examination of physiological mechanisms underlying the frequency-doubling illusion. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43: 3590-3599.
41. Wilson M, Quinn G, Dobson V & Breton M (1991): Normative values for visual fields in 4- to 12-year-old children using kinetic perimetry. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 28: 151-153.