Frequency Doubling Technology threshold testing in the pediatric age group

Journal of Glaucoma

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 278-282

  Nesher, Ronit ^a,b   Norman, Galia ^a   Stern, Yafit ^a   Gorck, Lilach ^a   Epstein, Esther ^a   Raz, Yehudit ^b   Assia, Ehud ^a,b  

^a MEIR MEDICAL CENTER   (Israel)

^b TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

Children; Frequency doubling technology; Visual fields

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CHILD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVICE; EYE FIXATION; FEMALE; FREQUENCY DOUBLING TECHNOLOGY PERIMETRY; HUMAN; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PATIENT SELECTION; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL FIELD;

ADULT; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; OPTIC NERVE; PERIMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TIME FACTORS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 3242695140     PISSN: 10570829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00061198-200408000-00004     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Kelly DH. Nonlinear visual responses to flickering sinusoidal gratings. J Opt Soc Am. 1981;71:1051-1055.
2. Johnson CA, Samuels SI. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38: 413-425.
3. Sponsol WE, Arango S, Trigo Y, et al. Clinical classification of glaucomatous visual field loss by frequency doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;125:830-836.
4. Chauhan BC, Johnson CA. Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:648-656.
5. Wu L, Suzuki Y, Kunimatsu S, et al. Frequency Doubling Technology and confocal scanning ophthalmoscopic optic disc analysis in open angle glaucoma with hemifield defects. J Glaucoma. 2001;10:256-260.
6. Quinn GE, Fea AM, Minguini N. Visual fields in 4 to 10 year old children using Goldmann and double-arc perimeters. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1991;28:314-319.
7. Wilson M, Quinn G, Dobson V, et al. Normative values for visual fields in 4-12 year old children using kinetic perimetry. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1991;28:151-153.
8. Cummings MF, van Hof-van Duin J, Mayer DL, et al. Visual fields of young children. Behav Brain Res. 1988;29:7-16.
9. Tschopp C, Safran AB, Viviani P, et al. Automated visual field examination in children aged 5-8 years. Part II. Normative values. Vision Res. 1998;38:2211-2218.
10. Safran AB, Laffi GL, Bullinger A, et al. Feasibility of automated visual field examination in children between 5 and 8 years of age Br. J Ophthalmol. 1996;80:515-518.
11. Chauban BC, Johnson CA. Test-Retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:648-656.
12. Heijl A, Bengtsson B. The effect of perimetric experience in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;114:19-22.
13. Iester M, Capris P, Pandolfo A, et al. Learning effect, short-term fluctuation and long term fluctuation in frequency doubling technique. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130:160-164.
14. Joson PJ, Kamantigue MEG, Chen PP. Learning effects among perimetric novices in frequency doubling technology perimetry. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:757-760.
15. Nyman K, Tomita G, Raitta C, et al. Correlation of asymmetry of visual field loss with optic disc topography in normal-tension glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994;112:349-353.
16. Artes PH, Nicholela MT, McCormick TA, et al. Effects of blur and repeated testing on sensitivity estimates with frequency doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol. 2003;44:646-652.
17. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Effect of dichotic adaptation on frequency-doubling perimetry. Optom Vis Sci. 2002;79:88-92.