What Are the Options of Psychophysical Approaches in Glaucoma?

Survey of Ophthalmology

Volumn 52, Issue 6 SUPPL., 2007, Pages

  Monhart, Matthias ^a  

^a Haag Streit AG   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

detection; FDT; Flicker; glaucoma; HPRP; Matrix; motion perimetry; perimetry; progression; Pulsar; Rarebit; SAP; SWAP; visual fields

Indexed keywords

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BRAIN DEPTH STIMULATION; CRITICAL FLICKER FUSION; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FOLLOW UP; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INFORMATION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MOVEMENT PERCEPTION; PATIENT MONITORING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; PSYCHOPHYSICS; SCREENING;

GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; PERIMETRY; PSYCHOPHYSICS; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 35848930142     PISSN: 00396257     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2007.08.007     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Arend K.O., and Plange N. [Diagnostic approaches for early detection of glaucoma progression]. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 223 (2006) 194-216
2. Artes P.H., and Chauhan B.C. Longitudinal changes in the visual field and optic disc in glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res 24 (2005) 333-354
3. Artes P.H., Hutchison D.M., Nicolela M.T., et al. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 46 (2005) 2451-2457
4. Brusini P., Salvetat M.L., Parisi L., et al. Probing glaucoma visual damage by rarebit perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol 89 (2005) 180-184
5. Budenz D.L., Rhee P., Feuer W.J., et al. Comparison of glaucomatous visual field defects using standard full threshold and Swedish interactive threshold algorithms. Arch Ophthalmol 120 (2002) 1136-1141
6. Dielemans I., Vingerling J.R., Wolfs R.C., et al. The prevalence of primary open-angle glaucoma in a population-based study in The Netherlands. The Rotterdam Study. Ophthalmology 101 (1994) 1851-1855
7. Frisén L. New, sensitive window on abnormal spatial vision: rarebit probing. Vision Res 42 (2002) 1931-1939
8. Gardiner S.K., Johnson C.A., and Spry P.G. Normal age-related sensitivity loss for a variety of visual functions throughout the visual field. Optom Vis Sci 83 (2006) 438-443
9. González-Hernández M., García-Feijoó J., Mendez M.S., et al. Combined spatial, contrast, and temporal functions perimetry in mild glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Eur J Ophthalmol 14 (2004) 514-522
10. Graham S.L., Drance S.M., Chauhan B.C., et al. Comparison of psychophysical and electrophysiological testing in early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 37 (1996) 2651-2662
11. Harper R., Henson D., and Reeves B.C. Appraising evaluations of screening/diagnostic tests: the importance of the study populations. Br J Ophthalmol 84 (2000) 1198-1202
12. Haymes S.A., Hutchison D.M., McCormick T.A., et al. Glaucomatous visual field progression with frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in a longitudinal prospective study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 46 (2005) 547-554
13. Kwon Y.H., Park H.J., Jap A., et al. Test-retest variability of blue-on-yellow perimetry is greater than white-on-white perimetry in normal subjects. Am J Ophthalmol 126 (1998) 29-36
14. Langerhorst CT, Carenini LL, Bakker D, et al: Comparison of SITA and DYNAMIC strategies with the same examination grid. Perimetry Update 1998/1999, pp. 17-24, ISBN 90-6299-155-6
15. Matsumoto C., Takada S., Okuyama S., et al. Automated flicker perimetry in glaucoma using Octopus 311: a comparative study with the Humphrey Matrix. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 84 (2006) 210-215
16. Morales J., Weitzman M.L., and González de la Rosa M. Comparison between Tendency-Oriented Perimetry (TOP) and octopus threshold perimetry. Ophthalmology 107 (2000) 134-142
17. Nowomiejska K., Vonthein R., Paetzold J., et al. Comparison between semiautomated kinetic perimetry and conventional Goldmann manual kinetic perimetry in advanced visual field loss. Ophthalmology 112 (2005) 1343-1354
18. Rossetti L., Fogagnolo P., Miglior S., et al. Learning effect of short-wavelength automated perimetry in patients with ocular hypertension. J Glaucoma 15 (2006) 399-404
19. Sample P.A., Bosworth C.F., Blumenthal E.Z., et al. Visual function-specific perimetry for indirect comparison of different ganglion cell populations in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41 (2000) 1783-1790
20. Sample P.A., Medeiros F.A., Racette L., et al. Identifying glaucomatous vision loss with visual-function-specific perimetry in the diagnostic innovations in glaucoma study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47 (2006) 3381-3389
21. Shabana N., Cornilleau Pérès V., Carkeet A., et al. Motion perception in glaucoma patients: a review. Surv Ophthalmol 48 (2003) 92-106
22. Tielsch J.M., Katz J., Singh K., et al. A population-based evaluation of glaucoma screening: the Baltimore Eye Survey. Am J Epidemiol 134 (1991) 1102-1110
23. Wall M, Brito CF, Kutzko K: Motion detection perimetry properties and results. Perimetry Update 1996/1997, pp. 21-33, ISBN 90-6299-139-4
24. Wall M., and Ketoff K.M. Random dot motion perimetry in patients with glaucoma and in normal subjects. Am J Ophthalmol 120 (1995) 587-596
25. Wild J.M., Kim L.S., Pacey I.E., et al. Evidence for a learning effect in short-wavelength automated perimetry. Ophthalmology 113 (2006) 206-215