Spatial pattern of glaucomatous visual field loss obtained with regionally condensed stimulus arrangements

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 51, Issue 11, 2010, Pages 5685-5689

  Schiefer, Ulrich ^a   Papageorgiou, Eleni ^a,b   Sample, Pamela A ^c   Pascual, John P ^c   Selig, Bettina ^a   Krapp, Elke ^a   Paetzold, Jens ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF THESSALY   (Greece)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; OPTIC DISK; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETINA NERVE CELL; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT; VISUAL STIMULATION;

ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SENSORY THRESHOLDS; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELD TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 79955963722     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.09-5067     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Sihota R, Gupta V, Tuli D, et al. Classifying patterns of localized glaucomatous visual field defects on automated perimetry. J Glaucoma. 2007;16:146-152.
2. Lau LI, Liu CJ, Chou JC, Hsu WM, Liu JHK. Patterns of visual field defects in chronic angle-closure glaucoma with different disease severity. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:1890-1894.
3. Hoffmann EM, Boden C, Zangwill LM, et al. Inter-eye comparison of patterns of visual field loss in patients with glaucomatous optic neuropathy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;141:703-708.
4. Sample PA, Chan K, Boden C, et al. Using unsupervised learning with variational Bayesian mixture of factor analysis to identify patterns of glaucomatous visual field defects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:2596-2605.
5. Goldbaum MH, Sample PA, Zhang Z, et al. Using unsupervised learning with independent component analysis to identify patterns of glaucomatous visual field defects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:3676-3683.
6. Kolker AE. Visual prognosis in advanced glaucoma: a comparison of medical and surgical therapy for retention of vision in 101 eyes with advanced glaucoma. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1977;75: 539-555.
7. Katz J, Sommer A, Gaasterland DE, Anderson DR. Comparison of analytic algorithms for detecting glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;109:1684-1689.
8. European Glaucoma Society. Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma. 2nd ed. Savona: Editrice Dogma; 2008.
9. Asman P, Heijl A. Glaucoma hemifield test: automated visual field evaluation. Arch Ophthalmol. 1992;110:812-819.
10. Chauhan BC, LeBlanc RP, Nicolela MT; Canadian Glaucoma Study Group. Canadian Glaucoma Study, 1: study design, baseline characteristics, and preliminary analyses. Can J Ophthalmol. 2006;41: 566-575.
11. CNTG study group. Comparison of glaucomatous progression between untreated patients with normal-tension glaucoma and patients with therapeutically reduced intraocular pressures: Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;126:487-497.
12. Aulhorn E, Karmeyer H. Frequency distribution in early glaucomatous visual field defects. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Series. 1977; 14:75-83.
13. European Glaucoma Society. Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma. 3nd ed. Savona: Editrice Dogma; 2009.
14. Hodapp E, Parrish RU, Anderson DR. Classification of glaucomatous field loss by HFA. In: Hodapp E, et al., eds. Clinical Decisions in Glaucoma. St. Louis: CV Mosby; 1993:52-61.
15. Mills RP, Budenz DL, Lee PP, et al. Categorizing the stage of glaucoma from pre-diagnosis to end-stage disease. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;141:24-30.
16. Hoffmann EM, Medeiros FA, Sample PA, et al. Relationship between patterns of visual field loss and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness measurements. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;141:463-471.
17. Airaksinen PJ, Drance SM, Douglas GR, Schulzer M, Wijsman K. Visual field and retinal nerve fiber layer comparisons in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1985;103:205-207.
18. Lee AJ, Wang JJ, Rochtchina E, et al. Patterns of glaucomatous visual field defects in an older population: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2003;31:331-335.
19. Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Cello KE, et al. Classification of visual field abnormalities in the ocular hypertension treatment study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:643-650.
20. Kitazawa Y, Yamamoto T. Glaucomatous visual field defects: their characteristics and how to detect them. Clin Neurosci. 1997;4: 279-283.
21. Damms T, Dannheim F, Dannheim D. Visual field indices for the nasal step: different calculation procedures and their correlation with the clinical classification of visual field defects. Eur J Ophthalmol. 1993;3:21-25.
22. Werner EB, Beraskow J. Peripheral nasal field defects in glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1979;86:1875-1878.
23. Zingirian M, Calabria G, Gandolfo E. The nasal step in normal and glaucomatous visual fields. Can J Ophthalmol. 1979;14:88-94.
24. Rönne HKT. Über das Gesichtsfeld beim Glaukom. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd. 1909;47:12-33.
25. Haeberlin H, Fankhauser F. Adaptive programs for analysis of the visual field by automatic perimetry-basic problems and solutions: efforts oriented towards the realisation of the generalised spatially adaptive Octopus program SAPRO. Doc Ophthalmol. 1980;50: 123-141.
26. Fankhauser F, Funkhouser A, Kwasniewska S. Advantages and limitations of the spatially adaptive program SAPRO in clinical perimetry. Int Ophthalmol. 1986;9:179-189.
27. Fankhauser F, Funkhouser A, Kwasniewska S. Evaluating the applications of the spatially adaptive program (SAPRO) in clinical perimetry, I. Ophthalmic Surg. 1986;17:338-342.
28. Fankhauser F, Funkhouser A, Kwasniewska S. Evaluating the applications of the spatially adaptive program (SAPRO) in clinical perimetry, II. Ophthalmic Surg. 1986;17:415-428.
29. Westcott MC, Garway-Heath DF, Fitzke FW, Kamal D, Hitchings RA. Use of high spatial resolution perimetry to identify scotomata not apparent with conventional perimetry in the nasal field of glaucomatous subjects. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86:761-766.
30. Kaiser HJ, Flammer J, Bucher PJ, et al. High-resolution perimetry of the central visual field. Ophthalmologica. 1994;208:10-14.
31. Aulhorn E, Durst W. Rasterperimetrie in der augenarztlichen Praxis. Fortschr Ophthalmol. 1982;79:350-353.
32. Airaksinen PJ, Heijl A. Visual field and retinal nerve fibre layer in early glaucoma after optic disc haemorrhage. Acta Ophthalmol Copenh. 1983;61:186-194.
33. Gaasterland DE. Advanced glaucoma intervention study. Ophthalmology. 1994;101:1445-1455.
34. Jürgens C, Koch T, Burth R, Schiefer U, Zell A. Skotomklassifizierung mit künstlichen neuronalen Netzwerken. Ophthalmologe. 2001;(suppl 1):83.
35. Ramrattan RS, Wolfs RC, Panda-Jonas S, et al. Prevalence and causes of visual field loss in the elderly and associations with impairment in daily functioning: the Rotterdam Study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119:1788-1794.
36. Flammer J, Pache M, Resink T. Vasospasm, its role in the pathogenesis of diseases with particular reference to the eye. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2001;20:319-349.
37. Sample PA, Goldbaum MH, Chan K, et al. Using machine learning classifiers to identify glaucomatous change earlier in standard visual fields. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:2660-2665.
38. Aulhorn E.Über Fixationsbreite und Fixationsfrequenz beim Lesen gerichteter Konturen. Pflugers Arch. 1953;257:318-328.
39. McDonald SA, Spitsyna G, Shillcock RC, Wise RJ, Leff AP. Patients with hemianopic alexia adopt an inefficient eye movement strategy when reading text. Brain. 2006;129:158-167.
40. Trauzettel-Klosinski S, Teschner C, Tornow R-P, Zrenner E. Reading strategies in normal subjects and in patients with macular scotoma-assessed by two new methods of resistration. Neuro- Ophthalmology. 1994;14:15-30.
41. Trauzettel-Klosinski S. The significance of the central visual field for reading ability and the value of perimetry for its assessment. In: Wall M, Heijl A, eds. Perimetry Update 1996/1997. Amsterdam/ New York: Kugler; 1997:417-426.
42. Trauzettel-Klosinski S, Reinhard J. The vertical field border in hemianopia and its significance for fixation and reading. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1998;39:2177-2186.
43. Haymes SA, LeBlanc RP, Nicolela MT, Chiasson LA, Chauhan BC. Risk of falls and motor vehicle collisions in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:1149-1155.
44. Owsley C, McGwin G Jr. Vision impairment and driving. Surv Ophthalmol. 1999;43:535-550.
45. Skalicky S, Goldberg I. Depression and quality of life in patients with glaucoma: a cross-sectional analysis using the Geriatric Depression Scale-15, assessment of function related to vision, and the Glaucoma Quality of Life-15. J Glaucoma. 2008;17:546-551.
46. Adler G, Bauer MJ, Rottunda S, Kuskowski M. Driving habits and patterns in older men with glaucoma. Soc Work Health Care. 2005;40:75-87.
47. Chisholm CM, Rauscher FG, Crabb DC, et al. Assessing visual fields for driving in patients with paracentral scotomata. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;92:225-230.
48. Haymes SA, LeBlanc RP, Nicolela MT, Chiasson LA, Chauhan BC. Glaucoma and on-road driving performance. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:3035-3041.
49. Szlyk JP, Mahler CL, Seiple W, Edward DP, Wilensky JT. Driving performance of glaucoma patients correlates with peripheral visual field loss. J Glaucoma. 2005;14:145-150.
50. Viswanathan AC, Crabb DP, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Prevalence and characteristics of central binocular visual field defects in patients attending a glaucoma perimetry service. In: Wall M, Mills RP, eds. Perimetry Update 2002/2003. The Hague, The Netherlands: Kugler Publications; 2003:83-85.
51. Crabb DP, Viswanathan AC. Integrated visual fields: a new approach to measuring the binocular field of view and visual disability. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;243:210-216.
52. Aspinall PA, Johnson ZK, Azuara-Blanco A, et al. Evaluation of quality of life and priorities of patients with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:1907-1915.
53. McGwin G Jr, Xie A, Mays A, et al. Visual field defects and the risk of motor vehicle collisions among patients with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:4437-4441.
54. Deva NC, Insull E, Gamble G, Danesh-Meyer HV. Risk factors for first presentation of glaucoma with significant visual field loss. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008;36:217-221.
55. Jampel HD, Vitale S, Ding Y, et al. Test-retest variability in structural and functional parameters of glaucoma damage in the glaucoma imaging longitudinal study. J Glaucoma. 2006;15:152-157.
56. Blumenthal EZ, Sample PA, Berry CC, et al. Evaluating several sources of variability for standard and SWAP visual fields in glaucoma patients, suspects, and normals. Ophthalmology. 2003;110: 1895-1902.
57. Heijl A, Lindgren A, Lindgren G. Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields. Am J Ophthalmol. 1989;108:130-135.
58. Nevalainen J, Paetzold J, Papageorgiou E, et al. Specification of progression in glaucomatous visual field loss, applying locally condensed stimulus arrangements. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009;247:1659-1669.
59. Schiefer U, Flad M, Stumpp F, et al. Increased detection rate of glaucomatous visual field damage with locally condensed grids: a comparison between fundus-oriented perimetry and conventional visual field examination. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:458-465.