Development and evaluation of a linear staircase strategy for the measurement of perimetric sensitivity

Vision Research

Volumn 46, Issue 18, 2006, Pages 2956-2967

  Malik, Rizwan ^a   Swanson, William H ^b   Garway Heath, David F ^a  

^a MOORFIELDS EYE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

Differential light sensitivity; Linear units; Monte Carlo simulation; Perimetry

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION FUNCTION; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; LIGHT; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PERIMETRY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIMULATION;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; COMPUTER SIMULATION; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PERIMETRY; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 33745239699     PISSN: 00426989     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2006.03.004     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Allergan Humphrey. (1986). The field analyzer primer. Allergan Humphrey, San Leandro, California.
2. Anderson D.R. Instruments and strategies (programs). Perimetry-with and without automation. second ed. (1987), The C.V. Mosby Company
3. Anderson A.J. Spatial resolution of the tendency-orientated perimetry algorithm. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 44 (2003) 1962-1968
4. Anderson A.J., and Johnson C.A. Anatomy of a supergroup: does a criterion of normal perimetric performance generate a supernormal population?. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 44 (2003) 5043-5048
5. Artes P.H., Iwase A., Ohno Y., Kitazawa Y., and Chauhan B.C. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, SITA standard and SITA fast strategies. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 43 (2002) 2654-2659
6. Bengtsson B., and Heijl A. False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability?. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 41 (2000) 2201-2204
7. Bland J.M., and Altman D.G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1 (1986) 307-310
8. Chauhan B.C., Tompkins J.D., LeBlanc R.P., and McCormick T.A. Characteristics of frequency-of-seeing curves in normal subjects, patients with suspected glaucoma and patients with glaucoma. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 34 (1993) 3534-3540
9. Chauhan, B. C., & Johnson, C. (1994). Evaluating and optimizing test strategies in automated perimetry. Journal of Glaucoma, 3, Supplement, S75-S81.
10. Fellman R.L., Lynn J.R., Starita R.J., and Swanson W.H. Clinical importance of spatial summation in glaucoma. In: Heijl A. (Ed). Perimetry update 1988/1989 (1989), Kugler & Ghedini, Berkeley 313-324
11. Garway-Heath D.F., Caprioli J., Fitzke F.W., and Hitchings R.A. Scaling the hill of vision: the physiological relationship between light sensitivity and ganglion cell numbers. Investigative Ophthalmolmology and Visual Science 41 (2000) 1774-1782
12. Garway-Heath D.F., Holder G.E., Fitzke F.W., and Hitchings R.A. Relationship between electrophysiological, psychophysiological and anatomical measurements in glaucoma. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 43 (2002) 2213-2220
13. Glass E., Schaumberger M., and Lachenmayr B.J. Simulations for FASTPAC and the standard 4-2 dB full-threshold strategy of the Humphrey field analyser. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 36 (1995) 1845-1847
14. Graham N., and Hood D.C. Modelling the dynamics of light adaptation: the merging of two traditions. Vision Research 321 (1992) 1373-1393
15. Harwerth R.S., Carter-Dawson L., Shen F., Smith III E.L., and Crawford M.L. Ganglion cell losses underlying visual field defects from experimental glaucoma. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 40 (1999) 2242-2250
16. Harwerth R.S., Carter-Dawson L., Smith III E.L., Barnes G., Holt W.F., and Crawford M.L. Neural losses correlated with visual losses in clinical perimetry. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 45 (2004) 3152-3160
17. Harwerth R.S., Carter-Dawson L., Smith III E.L., and Crawford M.L. Scaling the structure-function relationship for clinical perimetry. Acta Ophthalmologica Scandanavica 83 (2005) 448-455
18. Heijl A., Lindgren G., and Olsson J. Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field. Archives of Ophthalmology 105 (1987) 1544-1549
19. Henson D.B., Evans J., Chauhan B.C., and Lane C. Influence of fixation accuracy on threshold variability in patients with open angle glaucoma. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 37 (1996) 444-450
20. Henson D.B., Chaudry S., Artes P.H., Faragher E.B., and Ansons A. Response variability in the visual field: comparison of optic neuritis, glaucoma, ocular hypertension, and normal eyes. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 41 (2000) 417-420
21. Hood D.C., Greenstein V.C., Odel J.G., Zhang X., Ritch R., Liebmann J.M., et al. Visual field defects and multifocal visual evoked potentials: evidence of a linear relationship. Archives of Ophthalmology 120 (2002) 1672-1681
22. Johnson C.A., Chauhan B.C., and Shapiro L.R. Properties of staircase procedures for estimating thresholds in automated perimetry. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 33 (1992) 2966-2974
23. Johnson C.A. Psychophysical measurement of glaucomatous damage. Survey of Ophthalmology 45 Suppl 3l (2001) S313-S318 discussion S322-S314.
24. Maloney L.T. Confidence intervals for the parameters of psychometric functions. Perception & Psychophysics 47 (1990) 127-134
25. Pan, F., Swanson, W. H., & Dul, M. W. (2006). Evaluation of the two-stage neural model of glaucomatous defect: An approach to reduce test-retest variability. Optometry and Vision Science, accepted for publication.
26. Piltz J.R., and Starita R.J. Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields [letter]. American Journal of Ophthalmology 109 (1990) 109-111
27. Reus N.J., and Lemij H.G. The relationship between standard automated perimetry and GDx VCC measurements. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 45 (2004) 840-845
28. Schlottmann P.G., De Cilla S., Greenfield D.S., Caprioli J., and Garway-Heath D.F. Relationship between visual field sensitivity and retinal nerve fibre layer thickness as measured by scanning laser polarimetry. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 45 (2004) 1823-1829
29. Spry P.G.D., Johnson C.A., McKendrick A.M., and Turpin A. Measurement of visual field tests in glaucoma. British Journal of Ophthalmology 87 (2003) 107-112
30. Swanson W.H., Felius J., and Pan F. Perimetric defects and ganglion cell damage: interpreting linear relations using a two-stage neural model. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 45 (2004) 466-472
31. Turpin A., McKendrick A.M., Johnson C.A., and Vingys A. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, ZEST, and SITA-like strategies, as determined by computer simulation. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 44 (2003) 4787-4795
32. Weinreb R.N., and Khaw P.T. Glaucoma. Lancet 363 (2004) 1711-1720