Repeatability of automated perimetry: A comparison between standard automated perimetry with stimulus size III and V, matrix, and motion perimetry

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 50, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 974-979

  Wall, Michael ^a,b   Woodward, Kimberly R ^a   Doyle, Carrie K ^a   Artes, Paul H ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^c DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED PERIMETRY; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; VIDEORECORDING; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL STIMULATION; ADULT; AGED; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; OPTIC DISK; OPTIC NERVE DISEASE; PATHOLOGY; PERCEPTIVE THRESHOLD; PERIMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; VISUAL DISORDER;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OPTIC DISK; OPTIC NERVE DISEASES; PERIMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SENSORY THRESHOLDS; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 59449090271     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.08-1789     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Anderson JS, Lampl I, Gillespie DC, Ferster D. The contribution of noise to contrast invariance of orientation tuning in cat visual cortex (see comments). Science. 2000;290(5498):1968-1972.
2. Levine MW. Variability of responses to sinusoidal modulation. Vis Neurosci. 1994;11(1):155-163.
3. Tolhurst DJ, Movshon JA, Dean AF. The statistical reliability of signals in single neurons in cat and monkey visual cortex. Vision Res. 1983;23(8):775-785.
4. Kutzko KE, Brito CF, Wall M. Effect of instructions on conventional automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41(7): 2006-2013.
5. Wall M, Woodward KR, Brito CF. The effect of attention on conventional automated perimetry and luminance size threshold perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45(1):342-350.
6. Wild JM, Searle AE, Dengler Harles M, O'Neill EC. Long-term follow-up of baseline learning and fatigue effects in the automated perimetry of glaucoma and ocular hypertensive patients. Acta Ophthalmol. 1991;69:210-216.
7. Henson DB, Chaudry S, Artes PH, Faragher EB, Ansons A. Response variability in the visual field: comparison of optic neuritis, glaucoma, ocular hypertension, and normal eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41(2):417-421.
8. Wall M, Maw RJ, Stanek KE, Chauhan BC. The psychometric function and reaction times of automated perimetry in normal and abnormal areas of the visual field in glaucoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1996;37:878-885.
9. Wall M, Johnson C, Kutzko KS, Nguyen R, Brito CF, Keltner JL. Long- and short-term variability of automated perimetry results in patients with optic neuritis and healthy subjects. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116:53-61.
10. Flammer J, Drance SM, Zulauf M. Differential light threshold. Shortand long-term fluctuation in patients with glaucoma, normal controls, and patients with suspected glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1984;102:704-706.
11. Bebie H, Fankhauser F, Spahr J. Static perimetry: accuracy and fluctuations. Acta Ophthalmol. 1976;54:339-348.
12. Wall M, Montgomery EB. Using motion perimetry to detect visual field defects in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension: a comparison with conventional automated perimetry. Neurology. 1995;45:1169-1175.
13. Wall M, Kutzko KS, Chauhan BC. Variability in patients with glaucomatous optic nerve damage is reduced using size V stimuli. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38:426-435.
14. Schulzer M. Errors in the diagnosis of visual field progression in normal- tension glaucoma (see comments). Ophthalmology. 1994; 101(9):1589-1594; discussion 1595.
15. Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Quigg JM, Cello KE, Kass MA, Gordon MO. Confirmation of visual field abnormalities in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118(9):1187-1194.
16. 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(8): 2654-2659.
17. Nakayama K, Tyler CW. Psychophysical isolation of movement sensitivity by removal of familiar position cues. Vision Res. 1981; 21:427-433.
18. Wall M, Ketoff KM. Random dot motion perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects. Am J Ophthalmol. 1995;120:587-596.
19. Wall M, Brito C, Kutzko K. Motion perimetry: properties and results. Perimetry Update. 1996/1997. Proceedings of the Xth International Perimetric Society Meeting 1997;21-33.
20. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA, Fingeret M, et al. Characteristics of the normative database for the Humphrey matrix perimeter. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(4):1540-1548.
21. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2003;16(2):213-225.
22. Heijl A, Lindgren A, Lindgren G. Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields. Am J Ophthalmol. 1989;108:130-135.
23. Heijl A, Lindgren A, Lindgren G, Patella M. Intertest threshold variability in glaucoma. In: Mills RP, Heijl A, editors. Importance of Censored Observations and General Field Estimate. Amsterdam: Kugler; 1989:313-324.
24. Boeglin RJ, Caprioli J, Zulauf M. Long-term fluctuation of the visual field in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1992;113:396-400.
25. Flammer J, Drance SM, Fankhauser F, Augustiny L. Differential light threshold in automated static perimetry: factors influencing short-term fluctuation. Arch Ophthalmol. 1984;102:876-879.
26. Werner EB, Saheb N, Thomas D. Variability of static visual threshold responses in patients with elevated IOPs. Arch Ophthalmol. 1982;100:1627-1631.
27. Werner EB, Petrig B, Krupin T, Bishop KI. Variability of automated visual fields in clinically stable glaucoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1989;30:1083-1089.
28. Flammer J. Fluctuations in the Visual Field. In: Drance SM, Anderson DR, editors. Automatic Perimetry in Glaucoma. A Practical Guide. Orlando, FL: Grune & Stratton; 1985:161-173.
29. Werner EB, Ganiban G, Balazsi AG. Effect of test point location on the magnitude of threshold fluctuation in glaucoma patients undergoing automated perimetry. Perimetry Update. 1990/1991, Proceedings of the Xth International Perimetric Society Meeting 1991;175-181.
30. 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(7):2451-2457.
31. Pearson PM, Schmidt LA, Ly-Schroeder E, Swanson WH. Ganglion cell loss and age-related visual loss: a cortical pooling analysis. Optom Vis Sci. 2006;83(7):444-454.
32. 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(7):499-511.
33. Croner LJ, Purpura K, Kaplan E. Response variability in retinal ganglion cells of primates. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA. 1993;90(17): 8128-8130.
34. Dacey DM. Morphology of a small-field bistratified ganglion cell type in the macaque and human retina. Vis Neurosci. 1993;10: 1081-1098.
35. Garway-Heath DF, Caprioli J, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Scaling the hill of vision: the physiological relationship between light sensitivity and ganglion cell numbers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000; 41(7):1774-1782.
36. Wyatt HJ, Dul MW, Swanson WH. Variability of visual field measurements is correlated with the gradient of visual sensitivity. Vision Res. 2007;47(7):925-936.
37. Contestabile MT, Perdicchi A, Amodeo S, Recupero V, Recupero SM. The influence of learning effect on frequency doubling technology perimetry (Matrix). J Glaucoma. 2007;16(3):297-301.
38. Heijl A, Bengtsson B. The effect of perimetric experience in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;114(1):19-22.
39. Marra G, Flammer J. The learning and fatigue effect in automated perimetry. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1991;229:501-504.