Learning effect of standard automated perimetry in healthy individuals;Efeito aprendizado da perimetria automática padrão em indivíduos saudáveis

Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia

Volumn 71, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 523-528

  Engel Castro, Dinorah Piacentini ^a   Kawase, Juliana ^a   Melo, Luiz Alberto Soares ^a  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Learning; Perimetry; Reference values; Sensitivity and specificity; Sensory thresholds; Visual fields

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; LEARNING; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; PERCEPTIVE THRESHOLD; PERIMETRY; PHYSIOLOGY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TIME; VISUAL FIELD;

ADULT; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; LEARNING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERIMETRY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SENSORY THRESHOLDS; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; TIME FACTORS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 67649220592     PISSN: 00042749     EISSN: 16782925     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1590/S0004-27492008000400011     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Congdon N, O'Colmain B, Klaver CC, Klein R, Muñoz B, Friedman DS, et al. Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122(4):477-85.
2. Quigley HA, Broman AT. Number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(3):262-7. Comment in: Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(3):253-4.
3. Fankhauser F, Koch P, Roulier A. On automation of perimetry. Albrecht Von Graefes Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1972;184(2):126-50.
4. nd ed. St Louis: Mosby Year Book; 1999.
5. Shirato S, Inoue R, Fukushima K, Suzuki Y. Clinical evaluation of SITA: a new family of perimetric testing strategies. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1999;237(1):29-34.
6. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Evaluation of a new perimetric threshold strategy, SITA, in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1998;76(3):268-72.
7. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. The effect of perimetric experience in normal subjects. Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107(1):81-6.
8. Werner EB, Krupin T, Adelson A, Feitl ME. Effect of patient experience on the results of automated perimetry in glaucoma suspect patients. Ophthalmology. 1990;97(1):44-8.
9. Schimiti RB, Avelino RR, Kara-José N, Costa VP. Full-threshold versus Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) in normal individuals undergoing automated perimetry for the first time. Ophthalmology. 2002;109(11): 2084-92; discussion 2092.
10. Schimiti RB, Arciery ES, Avelino RR, Matsuo T, Costa VP. Full-threshold vs. Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) em pacientes glaucomatosos submetidos à perimetria computadorizada pela primeira vez. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2006;69(2):145-50.
11. Autzen T, Work K. The effect of learning and age on short-term fluctuation and mean sensitivity of automated static perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1990;68(3):327-30.
12. Kosoko O, Sommer A, Auer C. Duration of automated suprathreshold vs quantitative threshold field examination. Impact of age and ocular status. Arch Ophthalmol. 1986;104(3):398-401.
13. Wood JM, Wild JM, Hussey MK, Crews SJ. Serial examination of the normal visual field using Octopus automated projection perimetry. Evidence for a learning effect. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1987;65(3):326-33.
14. Flammer J, Drance SM, Zulauf M. Differential light threshold. Short and long term fluctuation in patients with glaucoma, normal controls, and patients with suspected glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1984;102(5):704-6.
15. Heijl A, Bengtsson B. The effect of perimetric experience in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;114(1):19-22.
16. Nordmann JP, Brion F, Hamard P, Mouton-Chopin D. [Evaluation of the Humphrey perimetry programs SITA Standard and SITA Fast in normal probands and patients with glaucoma]. J Fr Ophthalmol. 1998;21(8):549-54.
17. Wild JM, Moss ID. Baseline alterations in blue-on-yellow normal perimetric sensitivity. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1996;234(3)141-9.
18. Rosseti L, Fogagnolo P, Miglior S, Centofanti M, Vetrugno M, Orzalesi N. Learning effect of short-wavelength automated perimetry in patients with ocular hypertension. J Glaucoma. 2006;15(5):399-404.
19. Bernardi L, Costa VP, Shiroma LO. Flicker perimetry in healthy subjects: influence of age and gender, learning effect and short term fluctuation. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2007;70(1):91-9.
20. Matsuo H, Tomita G, Suzuki Y, Araie M. Learning effect and measurement variability in frequency-doubling technology perimetry in chronic open-angle glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2002;11(6):467-73.
21. Fujimoto N, Minowa K, Miyauchi O, Hanawa T, Adachi-Usami E. Learning effect for frequency doubling perimetry in patients with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;133(2):269-70.
22. Horani A, Frenkel S, Yahalom C, Farber MD, Ticho U, Blumenthal EZ. The learning effect in visual field testing of healthy subjects using frequency doubling technology. J Glaucoma. 2002;11(6):511-6.
23. Iester M, Capris P, Pandolfo A, Zingirian M, Traverso CE. Learning effect, short-term fluctuation, and long-term fluctuation in frequency doubling technique. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130(2):160-4.
24. Pierre-Filho PT, Schimiti RB, Vasconcellos JP, Costa VP. Sensitivity and specificity of frequency-doubling technology, tendency-oriented perimetry, SITA Standard and SITA Fast perimetry in perimetrically inexperience individuals. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2006;84(3):345-50.
25. Hong S, Na K, Kim CY, Seong GJ. Learning effect of Humphrey Matrix perimetry. Can J Ophthalmol. 2007;42(5):707-11.
26. Kulze JC, Stewart WC, Sutherland SE. Factors associated with a learning effect in glaucoma patients using automated perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1990;68(6):681-6.
27. Chylack LT Jr, Wolfe JK, Singer DM, Leske MC, Bullimore MA, Bailey IL,et al. The Lens Opacities Classification System III. The Longitudinal Study of Cataract Group. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111(6):831-6.
28. Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Parisi L, Brusini P. Rarebit perimetry in normal subjects: test-retest variability, learning effect, normative range, influence of optical defocus, and cataract extraction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007; 48(11):5320-31.
29. Stewart WC, Hunt HH. Threshold variation in automated perimetry. Surv Ophthalmol. 1993;37(5):353-61.
30. Werner EB, Adelson A, Krupin T. Effect of patient experience on the results of automated perimetry in clinically stable glaucoma patients. Ophthalmology. 1988;95(6):764-7.