Topography of the frequency doubling perimetry visual field compared with that of short wavelength and achromatic automated perimetry visual fields

British Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 90, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 70-74

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

^a Park House   (Australia)

^b Eye Associates   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOPOGRAPHY; VISION; VISUAL FIELD;

ADULT; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERIMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 29744461501     PISSN: 00071161     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2005.071266     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Kronfeld PC. The history of glaucoma. In: Tasman W, Jaeger EA, eds. Duane's clinical ophthalmology. Revised ed. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott, 1993;3, chapter 41.
2. Shapley R, Enroth-Cugell C. Visual adaptation and retinal gain controls. In: Osborne NN, Chader GJ, eds. Progress in retinal research. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1982;3:263-343.
3. Aulhorn E. Über die Beziehung Zwischen Lichtsinn und Sehschärfe. Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Ophthalmol 1964;167:4-4.
4. Johnson CA, Kelter JL, Balestrery F. Effects of target size and eccentricity on visual detection and resolution. Vis Res 1978;18:1217-22.
5. Traquair HM. Perimetry in the study of glaucoma. Trans Ophthalmol UK 1931;51:585-99.
6. Wassle H, Grunert U, Rohrenbeck J, et al. Retinal ganglion cell density and cortical magnification factor in the primate. Vis Res 1990;30:1897-911.
7. Anderson DR. Perimetry with and without automation. 2nd ed. St Louis: CV Mosby, 1987.
8. Merigan WH, Katz LM, Maunsell JHR. The effects of parvocellular lateral geniculate lesions on the acuity and contrast sensitivity of macaque monkeys. J Neuroscience 1991;11:944-1001.
9. Sample PA, Irak I, Martinez GA, et al. Asymmetries in the normal short-wavelength visual field: implications for short-wavelength automated perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 1997;124:46-52.
10. Sample PA, Johnson CA, Haegerstrom-Portnoy G, et al. Optimum parameters for short-wavelength automated perimetry. J Glaucoma 1996;5:375-83.
11. Johnson CA, Adams AJ, Twelker JD, et al. Age-related changes in the central visual field for short-wavelength-sensitive pathways. J Opt Soc Am 1988;5:2131-9.
12. Johnson CA, Samuels SJ. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997;38:413-25.
13. Maddess T, Severt WL. Testing for glaucoma with frequency-doubling illusion in the whole, macular and eccentric visual fields. Aust NZ J Ophthalmol 1999;27:194-6.
14. White AJ, Sun H, Swanson WH, et al. An examination of physiological mechanisms underlying the frequency-doubling illusion. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43:3590-9.
15. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Mechanisms isolated by frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43:398-401.
16. Kaplan E, Shapley RM. X and Y cells in the lateral geniculate nucleus of macaque monkeys. J Physiol 1982;330:125-43.
17. Maddess T, Henry GH. Performance of nonlinear visual units in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Clin Vis Sci 1992;7:371-83.
18. Livingstone MS, Hubel DH. Do the relative mapping densities of the magno- and parvocellular systems vary with eccentricity? J Neuroscience 1988;8:4334-9.
19. Jacobs NA, Patterson IH. Variability of the hill of vision and its significance in automated perimetry. Brit J Ophthalmol 1985;69:824-6.
20. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field. Arch Ophthalmol 1987;105:1544-9.
21. Katz J, Sommer A. Asymmetry and variation in the normal hill of vision. Arch Ophthalmol 1986;104:65-8.
22. Parrish RK, Schiffman J, Anderson DA. Static and kinetic visual field testing, reproducibility in normal volunteers. Arch Ophthalmol 1984;102:1497-502.
23. Foster PJ, Buhrmann R, Quigley HA, et al. The definition and classification of glaucoma in prevalence surveys. Br J Ophthalmol 2002;86:238-42.
24. Johnson C, Wall M, Fingeret M, et al. A primer for frequency doubling technology. Dublin, CA: Humphrey Systems Welch-Allyn, Inc, 1998.
25. House P, Schulzer M, Drance S, et al. Characteristics of the normal central visual field measured with resolution perimetry. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1991;229:8-12.
26. Wall M, Chauhan B, Frisén L, et al. Visual field of high-pass resolution perimetry in normal subjects. J Glaucoma 2004;13:15-21.
27. Wojciechowski R, Trick GL, Steinman SB. Topography of the age-related decline in motion sensitivity. Opt Vis Sci 1995;72:67-74.
28. De Monasterio FM, Gouras P. Functional properties of ganglion cells of the rhesus monkey retina. J Physiol 1975;251:167-95.
29. Connolly M, Van Essen D. The representation of the visual field in parvicellular and magnocellular layers in the lateral geniculate nucleus in the macaque monkey. J Comp Neurol 1984;226:544-64.
30. Wild JM, Cubbidge RP, Pacey IE, et al. Statistical aspects of the normal visual field in short-wavelength automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1998;39:54-63.
31. Adams CW, Bullimore MA, Wall M, et al. Normal aging effects for frequency doubling technology perimetry. Opt Vis Sci 1999;76:582-7.