Use of a continuous probability scale to display visual field damage

Archives of Ophthalmology

Volumn 127, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 749-756

  Wall, Michael ^a   Johnson, Chris A ^a   Kardon, Randy H ^a   Crabb, David P ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CHILD; CONTINUOUS SCALE PROBABILITY PLOT; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR HYPERTENSION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RATING SCALE; SCHOOL CHILD; SWEDEN; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT; VISUAL IMPAIRMENT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CHILD; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OCULAR HYPERTENSION; OPTIC NERVE DISEASES; PERIMETRY; PROBABILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SENSORY THRESHOLDS; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELDS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 66949147262     PISSN: 00039950     EISSN: 15383601     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.111     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Spahr J, Fankhauser F, Bebie H. Advances in the automation of perimetry (author's transl) [in German]. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd. 1976;168(1):84-86.
2. Heijl A. Studies on computerized perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol Suppl. 1977;132:1-42. (Pubitemid 8098890)
3. Frankhauser F, Spahr J, Bebie H. Some aspects of the automation of perimetry. Surv Ophthalmol. 1977;22(2):131-141. (Pubitemid 8202642)
4. Schwartz B, Nagin P. Probability maps for evaluating automated visual fields. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser. 1985;42:39-48.
5. Heijl A, Asman P. A clinical study of perimetric probability maps. Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107(2):199-203. (Pubitemid 19055337)
6. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J, Asman P. Visual field interpretation with empiric probability maps. Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107(2):204-208. (Pubitemid 19055338)
7. Fisher RA. Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Edinburgh, Scotland: Oliver & Boyd; 1925.
8. Lachenmayr BJ, Kiermeir U, Kojetinsky S. Points of a normal visual field are not statistically independent. Ger J Ophthalmol. 1995;4(3):175-181.
9. Heijl A, Lindgren A, Lindgren G. Inter-point correlations of deviations of threshold values in normal and glaucomatous visual fields. In: Wall M, Wild JM, eds. Perimetry Update 1988/1989. The Hague, the Netherlands: Kugler; 1989:177-183.
10. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field. Arch Ophthalmol. 1987;105(11):1544-1549. (Pubitemid 17153246)
11. Wall M, Neahring RK, Woodward KR. Sensitivity and specificity of frequency doubling perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic disorders: a comparison with conventional automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43(4):1277-1283. (Pubitemid 34258303)
12. Strouthidis NG, Vinciotti V, Tucker AJ, Gardiner SK, Crabb DP, Garway-Heath DF. Structure and function in glaucoma: the relationship between a functional visual field map and an anatomic retinal map. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47(12):5356-5362. (Pubitemid 46723785)
13. Gardiner SK, Crabb DP, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Reducing noise in suspected glaucomatous visual fields by using a new spatial filter. Vision Res. 2004;44 (8):839-848. (Pubitemid 38210280)
14. Diggle PJ. Statistical Analysis of Spatial Point Patterns. London, England: Academic Press; 1983.