Development and evaluation of a contrast sensitivity perimetry test for patients with glaucoma

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 49, Issue 7, 2008, Pages 3049-3057

  Hot, Aliya ^a   Dul, Mitchell W ^a   Swanson, William H ^b  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; OPTICAL TOMOGRAPHY; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETINA; SPATIAL FREQUENCY DISCRIMINATION; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL THRESHOLD; AUTOMATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVALUATION; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD; TOMOGRAPHY;

ADULT; AGED; AUTOMATION; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PERIMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETINA; TOMOGRAPHY;

EID: 48249124954     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.07-1205     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Artes PH, Iwase A, Ohno Y, Kitazawa Y, Chauhan BC. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast strategies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:2654-2659. (Pubitemid 34809456)
2. Fellman RL, Lynn JR, Starita RJ, Swanson WH. Clinical importance of spatial summation in glaucoma. In: Hejil A, ed. Proceedings of the VIIIth International Perimetric Society Meeting; Vancouver (Canada); May 9-12, 1988. Perimetry Update 1988/1989. Berkeley, CA: Kugler & Ghedini; 1989:313-324.
3. Wall M, Kutzko KE, Chauhan BC. Variability in patients with glaucomatous visual field damage is reduced using size V stimuli. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38:426-435. (Pubitemid 27085700)
4. Wilensky JT, Mermelstein JR, Siegel HG. The use of different-sized stimuli in automated perimetry. Am J of Ophthalmol. 1986;101:710-713. (Pubitemid 16088232)
5. Pearson P, Swanson WH, Fellman RL. Chromatic and achromatic defects in patients with progressing glaucoma. Vision Res. 2001;41:1215-1227. (Pubitemid 32268617)
6. Pan F, Swanson WH, Dul MW. Evaluation of a two-stage neural model of glaucomatous defect: an approach to reduce test-retest variability. Optom Vis Sci. 2006;83:499-511. (Pubitemid 44154919)
7. Artes PH, Hutchison DM, Nicolela MT, LeBlanc RP, Chauhan BC. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:2451-2457. (Pubitemid 43119493)
8. Sun H, Dul WM, Swanson HW. Linearity can account for the similarity among conventional, frequency-doubling, and Gabor-based perimetric tests in the glaucomatous macula. Optom Vis Sci. 2006;83:455-465. (Pubitemid 44154907)
9. Ramesh SV, George R, Soni PM, et al. Population norms for frequency doubling perimetry with uncorrected refractive error. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84(6):496-504. (Pubitemid 46955283)
10. White AJ, Sun H, Swanson WH, Lee BB. An examination of physiological mechanisms underlying the frequency-doubling illusion. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:3590-3599. (Pubitemid 35334369)
11. Swanson WH, Dul MW, Fischer SE. Quantifying effects of retinal illuminance on frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:235-240. (Pubitemid 40041202)
12. Harwerth RS, Crawford ML, Frishman LJ, Viswanathan S, Smith EL 3rd, Carter-Dawson L. Visual field defects and neural losses from experimental glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2002;21(1):91-125.
13. Anderson DR, Patella VM. Automated Perimetry. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1999:152-153.
14. Campbell FW, Green DG. Optical and retinal factors affecting visual resolution. J Physiol. 1965;181(3):576-593.
15. Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, Rootzen H. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1997;75:368-375. (Pubitemid 27470462)
16. Wetherill GB, Levitt H. Sequential estimation of points on a psychometric function. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1965;18:1-10.
17. Heijl A, Krakau CE. An automatic perimeter for glaucoma visual field screening and control: construction and clinical cases. Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol. 1975;197:13-23.
18. Newkirk MR, Gardiner SK, Demirel S, Johnson CA. Assessment of false positives with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II perimeter with the SITA Algorithm. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47(10):4632-4637. (Pubitemid 46579394)
19. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:2201-2204. (Pubitemid 30450993)
20. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. Reliability parameters in computerized perimetry. Doc Ophthalmol. 1987;49:593-600.
21. Katz J, Sommer A. Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests. Arch Ophthalmol. 1988;106:1252-1254. (Pubitemid 18216844)
22. Katz J, Sommer A. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss: the effect of patient reliability. Ophthalmology. 1990;97:1032-1037. (Pubitemid 20251134)
23. Swanson WH, Birch EE. Extracting thresholds from noisy psychophysical data. Percept Psychophys. 1992;51:409-422.
24. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307-310. (Pubitemid 16134762)
25. Pointer JS, Hess RF. The contrast sensitivity gradient across the human visual field: with emphasis on the low spatial frequency range. Vision Res. 1989;29:1133-1151. (Pubitemid 19230077)
26. Garway-Heath DF, Holder GE, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Relationship between electrophysiological, psychophysical, and anatomical measurements in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:2213-2220. (Pubitemid 34700650)