Quantifying adaptation and fatigue effects in frequency doubling perimetry

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 943-948

  Anderson, Andrew John ^a   McKendrick, Allison Maree ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCOMMODATION; ADULT; ARTICLE; FATIGUE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LIGHT ADAPTATION; MEASUREMENT; MONOCULAR VISION; NORMAL HUMAN; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; VISUAL ADAPTATION; VISUAL STIMULATION; VISUAL STRESS; VISUAL THRESHOLD; ASTHENOPIA; LIGHT; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PERCEPTIVE THRESHOLD; PHYSIOLOGY; VISUAL FIELD;

ADAPTATION, OCULAR; ADULT; ASTHENOPIA; HUMANS; LIGHT; MIDDLE AGED; PERIMETRY; SENSORY THRESHOLDS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 33847748970     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.06-0685     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Adams CW, Bullimore MA, Wall M, Fingeret M, Johnson CA. Normal aging effects for frequency doubling technology perimetry. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76:582-587.
2. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Effect of dichotic adaptation on frequency doubling perimetry. Optom Vis Sci. 2002;79:88-92.
3. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA, Fingeret M, et al. Characteristics of the normative database for the Humphrey Matrix perimeter. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:1540-1548.
4. Heijl A. Time changes of contrast thresholds during automated perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol. 1977;55:696-708.
5. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field. Arch Ophthalmol. 1987;105:1544-1549.
6. Johnson CA, Adams CW, Lewis RA. Fatigue effects in automated perimetry. Appl Optics. 1988;27:1030-1037.
7. Searle AET, Wild JM, Shaw DE, O'Neill EC. Time-related variation in normal automated static perimetry. Ophthalmology. 1991;98:701-707.
8. Hudson D, Wild JM, O'Neill EC. Fatigue effects during a single session of automated static perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994;35:268-280.
9. Gonzalez de la Rosa M, Pareja A. Influence of the "fatigue effect" on the mean deviation measurement in perimetry. Eur J Ophthalmol. 1997;7:29-34.
10. Cornsweet TN, Teller DY. Relation of increment thresholds to brightness and luminance. J Opt Soc Am. 1965;55:1303-1308.
11. Mollon JD, Polden PG. A curiosity of light adaptation. Nature. 1980;286:59-62.
12. Pianta MJ, Kalloniatis M. Characterisation of dark adaptation in human cone pathways: an application of the equivalent background hypothesis. J Physiol. 2000;528:591-608.
13. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Frequency-doubling technology perimetry and optical defocus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44: 4147-4152.
14. Treutwein B. Adaptive psychophysical procedures. Vision Res. 1995;35:2503-2522.
15. Watson AB, Pelli DG. QUEST: a Bayesian adaptive psychometric method. Percept Psychophys. 1983;33:113-120.
16. King-Smith PE, Grigsby SS, Vingrys AJ, Benes SC, Supowit A. Efficient and unbiased modifications of the QUEST threshold method: theory, simulations, experimental evaluation and practical implementation. Vision Res. 1994;34:885-912.
17. Artes PH, Nicolela MT, McCormick TA, LeBlanc RP, Chauhan BC. Effects of blur and repeated testing on sensitivity estimates with frequency doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 44: 646-652.
18. Gilinsky A, Doherty RS. Interocular transfer of orientational effects. Science. 1969;164:454-455.
19. Lansford TG, Baker HD. Dark adaptation: an interocular light-adaptation effect. Science. 1969;164:1307-1309.
20. Wildsoet C, Wood J, Maag H, Sabdia S. The effect of different forms of monocular occlusion on measures of central visual function. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1998;18:263-268.
21. Fuhr PS, Hershner TA, Daum KM. Ganzfeld blankout occurs in bowl perimetry and is eliminated by translucent occlusion. Arch Ophthalmol. 1990;108:983-988.
22. Capris P, Gandolfo E, Tarabuso E, Semino E, Corallo G, Fava G. Influence of occlusion of the non-tested eye on sensitivity in automated perimetry. In: Mills RM, ed. Perimetry Update 1992/93 Proceedings of the Xth International Perimetric Society Meeting, Kyoto, Japan, October 20-23, 1992. New York: Kugler Publications; 1993:377-379.
23. Makous W, Teller D, Boothe R. Binocular interactions in the dark. Vision Res. 1976;16:473-476.
24. Bolanowski SJJ, Doty RW. Perceptual "blankout" of monocular homogenous fields (Ganzfelder) is prevented with binocular viewing. Vision Res. 1987;27:967-982.
25. Yang J, Stevenson SB. Post-retinal processing of background luminance. Vision Res. 1999;39:4045-4051.
26. Heijl A, Drance SM. Changes in differential threshold in patients with glaucoma during prolonged perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol. 1983;67:512-516.
27. Anderson DR, Patella VM. Automated Static Perimetry. St. Louis: CV Mosby; 1999:10-35.
28. Lee S, Blake R. Rival ideas about binocular rivalry. Vision Res. 1999;39:1447-1454.
29. Sample PA, Johnson CA, Haegerstrom-Portnoy G, Adams AJ. Optimum parameters for short-wavelength automated perimetry. J Glaucoma. 1996;5:375-383.
30. Smith EL III, Levi DM, Harwerth RS, White JM. Color vision is altered during the suppression phase of binocular rivalry. Science. 1982;218:802-804.
31. González de la Rosa M, Martinez A, Sanchez M, Mesa C, Cordovés L, Losada MJ. Accuracy of tendency-oriented perimetry with the Octopus 1-2-3 perimeter. In: Wall M, Heijl A, eds. Perimetry Update 1996/1997 Proceedings of the XIIth International Perimetric Society Meeting, Würzburg, Germany, June 4-8, 1996. Amsterdam: Kugler Publications; 1997:119-123.
32. Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, Rootzén H. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1997;75:368-375.
33. Bengtsson B. A new rapid threshold algorithm for short-wavelength automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44: 1388-1394.
34. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Comparison of the ASA, MOBS, and ZEST threshold methods. Vision Res. 2006;46:2403-2411.