New perimetric technicques: A comparison between rarebit and frequency doubling technology perimetry in normal subjects and glaucoma patients

Journal of Glaucoma

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 268-272

  Martin, Lene ^a,b   Wanger, Peter ^a  

^a KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^b ST ERIK S EYE HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

FDT; Glaucoma; Microdot; Perimetry; Rarebit

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVICE; FEMALE; FREQUENCY DOUBLING TECHNOLOGY PERIMETRY; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR HYPERTENSION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RAREBIT MICRODOT PERIMETRY; SCREENING TEST; VISUAL FIELD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; OPTIC NERVE DISEASE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OCULAR HYPERTENSION; OPTIC NERVE DISEASES; PERIMETRY; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 3242660870     PISSN: 10570829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00061198-200408000-00002     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, et al. Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002; 120:1268-1279.
2. Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(6):714-20;discussion 829-830.
3. Delgado MF, Nguyen NT, Cox TA, et al. American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmic Technology Assessment Committee 2001-2002 Glaucoma Panel. Automated perimetry: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology, 2002;109:2362-2374.
4. Frisén L. New, sensitive window on abnormal spatial vision: rarebit probing. Vision Res. 2002;42:1931-1939.
5. Kerrigan-Baumrind LA, Quigley HA, Pease ME, et al. Number of ganglion cells in glaucoma eyes compared with threshold visual field tests in the same persons. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;441:741-748.
6. Frisén L. Spatial vision in visually asymptomatic subjects at high risk for multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiat. (in press).
7. Martin L, Wanger P, Vancea L, et al. Concordance of high pass resolution perimetry and frequency doubling technology perimetry results in glaucoma: no support for selective ganglion cell damage. J Glaucoma. 2003; 12:40-44.
8. Johnson CA, Wall M, Murray F, et al. A primer for frequency doubling technology. Dublin, CA: Humphrey Systems 1998.
9. Sample PA, Bosworth CF, Blumenthal EZ, et al. Visual function-specific perimetry for indirect comparison of different ganglion cell populations in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:1783-1790.
10. Bumstein Y, Ellish NJ, Magbaron M, et al. Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry with humphrey visual field analysis in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129:328-333.
11. Milano G, Rossi GCM, Djeugoue A, et al. Comparison of achromatic automated perimetry, short-wavelength automated perimetry and frequency doubling technique in the diagnosis of early glaucoma. Perimetry Update 2000/2001. Kugier Publications, The Netherlands. 2001; 217-224.
12. Anderson RS, O'Brian C. Psychophysical evidence for selective loss of M ganglion cells in glaucoma. Vision Res. 1997;37:1079-1083.
13. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Mechanisms isolated by frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:398-401.
14. White AJ, Sun H, Swanson WH, et al. An examination of physiological mechanisms underlying the frequency-doubling illusion. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;43:3590-3599.
15. McKendrick AM, Anderson AJ, Johnson CA, et al. Appearance of the frequency doubling stimulus in normal subjects and patients with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:1111-1116.