Learning curve and fatigue effect of flicker defined form perimetry

American Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 151, Issue 6, 2011, Pages

  Lamparter, Julia ^a   Schulze, Andreas ^a   Schuff, Ann Christin ^a   Berres, Manfred ^b   Pfeiffer, Norbert ^a   Hoffmann, Esther M ^a  

^a JOHANNES GUTENBERG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES KOBLENZ   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; FATIGUE; FIXATION LOSS ERROR; FLICKER DEFINED FORM PERIMETRY; GLAUCOMA; GLAUCOMA HEMIFIELD TEST; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LEARNING CURVE; NORMAL HUMAN; PERIMETER; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RELIABILITY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; VISION TEST; VISUAL FIELD;

EID: 79957560650     PISSN: 00029394     EISSN: 18791891     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2010.11.031     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Kim TW, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, Sample PA, Shah N, Weinreb RN. Retinal nerve fiber layer damage as assessed by optical coherence tomography in eyes with a visual field defect detected by frequency doubling technology perimetry but not by standard automated perimetry. Ophthalmology 2007;114(6):1053-1057. (Pubitemid 46829366)
2. Clement CI, Goldberg I, Graham S, Healey PR. Humphrey matrix frequency doubling perimetry for detection of visual field defects in open-angle glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2009;93(5):582-588.
3. Heijl A. Automatic perimetry in glaucoma visual field screening. A clinical study. Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol 1976;200(1):21-37.
4. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Ophthalmol Clin North Am 2003;16(2):213-225. (Pubitemid 36666041)
5. Lamparter J, Schulze A, Hoffmann EM. [Frequency-doubling technology: A new method for determining glaucomatous visual field defects]. Ophthalmologe 2009;106(8):709-713.
6. Johnson CA, Adams AJ, Casson EJ, Brandt JD. Blue-on-yellow perimetry can predict the development of glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol 1993;111(5):645-650. (Pubitemid 23143173)
7. Rossetti 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. (Pubitemid 44434993)
8. Taravati P, Woodward KR, Keltner JL, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of the Humphrey Matrix to detect homonymous hemianopias. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49(3):924-928.
9. Huang CQ, Carolan J, Redline D, et al. Humphrey Matrix perimetry in optic nerve and chiasmal disorders: comparison with Humphrey SITA standard 24-2. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49(3):917-923.
10. Johnson CA, Samuels SJ. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997;38(2):413-425. (Pubitemid 27085699)
11. Goren D, Flanagan JG. Is flicker-defined form (FDF) dependent on the contour? J Vis 2008;8(4):15.1-11.
12. Quaid PT, Flanagan JG. Defining the limits of flicker defined form: effect of stimulus size, eccentricity and number of random dots. Vision Res 2005;45(8):1075-1084.
13. 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. (Pubitemid 43119493)
14. Katz J, Sommer A, Witt K. Reliability of visual field results over repeated testing. Ophthalmology 1991;98(1):70-75.
15. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. The effect of perimetric experience in normal subjects. Arch Ophthalmol 1989;107(1):81-86. (Pubitemid 19037329)
16. Marra G, Flammer J. The learning and fatigue effect in automated perimetry. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1991;229(6):501-504.
17. Hudson C, Wild JM, O'Neill EC. Fatigue effects during a single session of automated static threshold perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1994;35(1):268-280. (Pubitemid 24046851)
18. Heijl A, Bengtsson B. The effect of perimetric experience in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1996;114(1):19-22. (Pubitemid 26026189)
19. Schimiti RB, Avelino RR, Kara-Jose 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):2084-2092; discussion 2092.
20. Joson PJ, Kamantigue ME, Chen PP. Learning effects among perimetric novices in frequency doubling technology perimetry. Ophthalmology 2002;109(4):757-760. (Pubitemid 34270135)
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):269-270. (Pubitemid 34072060)
22. 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):467-473. (Pubitemid 36015102)
23. 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):511-516. (Pubitemid 36015111)
24. 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):160-164.
25. Wild JM, Moss ID. Baseline alterations in blue-on-yellow normal perimetric sensitivity. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1996;234(3):141-149. (Pubitemid 26050907)
26. Wild JM, Kim LS, Pacey IE, Cunliffe IA. Evidence for a learning effect in short-wavelength automated perimetry. Ophthalmology 2006;113(2):206-215. (Pubitemid 43170769)
27. Gardiner SK, Demirel S, Johnson CA. Is there evidence for continued learning over multiple years in perimetry? Optom Vis Sci 2008;85(11):1043-1048.
28. Garway-Heath DF, Poinoosawmy D, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Mapping the visual field to the optic disc in normal tension glaucoma eyes. Ophthalmology 2000;107(10):1809-1815.
29. 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):91-99.
30. Castro DP, Kawase J, Melo LA Jr. Learning effect of standard automated perimetry in healthy individuals. Arq Bras Oftalmol 2008;71(4):523-528.
31. Centofanti M, Fogagnolo P, Oddone F, et al. Learning effect of humphrey matrix frequency doubling technology perimetry in patients with ocular hypertension. J Glaucoma 2008;17(6):436-441.
32. 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):326-333.
33. 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.
34. Horn FK, Wakili N, Junemann AM, Korth M. Testing for glaucoma with frequency-doubling perimetry in normals, ocular hypertensives, and glaucoma patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2002;240(8):658-665. (Pubitemid 36075627)
35. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Effect of dichoptic adaptation on frequency-doubling perimetry. Optom Vis Sci 2002;79(2):88-92. (Pubitemid 34171117)
36. Adams CW, Bullimore MA, Wall M, Fingeret M, Johnson CA. Normal aging effects for frequency doubling technology perimetry. Optom Vis Sci 1999;76(8):582-587. (Pubitemid 29402657)
37. Peachey NS, Alexander KR, Derlacki DJ, Fishman GA. Light adaptation, rods, and the human cone flicker ERG. Vis Neurosci 1992;8(2):145-150.
38. Kondo M, Miyake Y, Piao CH, Tanikawa A, Horiguchi M, Terasaki H. Amplitude increase of the multifocal electroretinogram during light adaptation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999;40(11):2633-2637. (Pubitemid 29455494)
39. Hong S, Na K, Kim CY, Seong GJ. Learning effect of Humphrey Matrix perimetry. Can J Ophthalmol 2007;42(5):707-711. (Pubitemid 350157558)