Estimation of spatial scale across the visual field using sinusoidal stimuli

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 53, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 633-639

  Keltgen, Kelsey M ^a   Swanson, William H ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CELL DENSITY; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; EYE FIXATION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOPHYSICS; RETINA GANGLION CELL; VISION; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL STIMULATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTIVE THRESHOLD; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; REFERENCE VALUE;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REFERENCE VALUES; SENSORY THRESHOLDS; VISUAL FIELD TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 84858994258     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.10-6674     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Anderson DR, Patella VM. Automated Static Perimetry. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1999.
2. Goldmann H. Fundamentals of exact perimetry 1945. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76:599-604.
3. Schade OH Sr. Optical and photoelectric analog of the eye. J Opt Soc Am. 1956;46:721-739.
4. Graham N. Breaking the visual stimulus into parts. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 1992;1:55-61.
5. Koenderink JJ, Bouman MA, Bueno de Mesquita AE, Slappendel S. Perimetry of contrast detection thresholds of moving spatial sine patterns, II: the far peripheral visual field (eccentricity 0 degrees-50 degrees). J Opt Soc Am. 1978;68:850-854.
6. Regan D, Beverley KI. Visual fields described by contrast sensitivity, by acuity, and by relative sensitivity to different orientations. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1983;24:754-759.
7. Koenderink JJ, Bouman MA, Bueno de Mesquita AE, Slappendel S. Perimetry of contrast detection thresholds of moving spatial sine wave patterns, I: the near peripheral visual field (eccentricity 0 degrees-8 degrees). J Opt Soc Am. 1978;68:845-849.
8. Watson AB. Estimation of local spatial scale. J Opt Soc Am A. 1987;4:1579-1582.
9. Watson AB, Barlow HB, Robson JG. What Does the Eye See Best? Nature. 1983;302:419-422.
10. Watson AB, Robson JG. Discrimination at threshold: labelled detectors in human vision. Vision Res. 1981;21:1115-1122.
11. Bodis-Wollner I, Brannan JR. Hidden visual loss in optic neuropathy is revealed using Gabor patch contrast perimetry. Clin Neurosci. 1997;4:284-291.
12. Gabor D. A theory of communication. J Instr Electr Eng. 1946;93: 429-457.
13. Hot A, Dul MW, Swanson WH. Development and evaluation of a contrast sensitivity perimetry test for patients with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:3049-3057.
14. Harwerth RS, Crawford ML, Frishman LJ, Viswanathan S, Smith EL 3rd, Carter-Dawson L. Visual field defects and neural losses from experimental glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2002;21:91-125.
15. 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;83:499-511.
16. Latham K, Whitaker D, Wild JM, Elliott DB. Magnification perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993;34:1691-1701.
17. Wild JM, Wood JM, Barnes DA. The cortical representation of gradient-adapted multiple-stimulus perimetry. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1986;6:401-405.
18. Wood JM, Wild JM, Drasdo N, Crews SJ. Perimetric profiles and cortical representation. Ophthalmic Res. 1986;18:301-308.
19. Pan F, Swanson WH. A cortical pooling model of spatial summation for perimetric stimuli. J Vis. 2006;6:1159-1171.
20. Heijl A, Krakau CE. An automatic perimeter for glaucoma visual field screening and control. Construction and clinical cases. Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol. 1975;197: 13-23.
21. Anderson SJ, Mullen KT, Hess RF. Human peripheral spatial resolution for achromatic and chromatic stimuli: limits imposed by optical and retinal factors. J Physiol. 1991;442:47-64.
22. Silva MF, Maia-Lopes S, Mateus C, et al. Retinal and cortical patterns of spatial anisotropy in contrast sensitivity tasks. Vision Res. 2008;48:127-135.
23. Anderson RS, Wilkinson MO, Thibos LN. Psychophysical localization of the human visual streak. Optom Vis Sci. 1992;69:171-174.
24. Curcio CA, Drucker DN. Retinal ganglion cells in Alzheimer's disease and aging. Ann Neurol. 1993;33:248-257.
25. Grigsby SS, Tsou BH. Grating and flicker sensitivity in the near and far periphery: naso-temporal asymmetries and binocular summation. Vision Res. 1994;34:2841-2848.
26. 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; 41:1774-1782.
27. Kerrigan-Baumrind LA, Quigley HA, Pease ME, Kerrigan DF, Mitchell RS. Number of ganglion cells in glaucoma eyes compared with threshold visual field tests in the same persons. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:741-748.
28. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA, Fingeret M, et al. Characteristics of the normative database for the Humphrey matrix perimeter. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:1540-1548.
29. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field. Arch Ophthalmol. 1987;105:1544-1549.
30. Silva MF, Mateus C, Reis A, Nunes S, Fonseca P, Castelo-Branco M. Asymmetry of visual sensory mechanisms: electrophysiological, structural, and psychophysical evidences. J Vis. 2010;10:1-11.
31. Harwerth RS, Carter-Dawson L, Smith EL 3rd, Barnes G, Holt WF, Crawford ML. Neural losses correlated with visual losses in clinical perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:3152-3160.
32. Drasdo N, Mortlock KE, North RV. Ganglion cell loss and dysfunction: relationship to perimetric sensitivity. Optom Vis Sci. 2008;85:1036-1042.
33. 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;41:417-421.
34. Pelli DG. Uncertainty explains many aspects of visual contrast detection and discrimination. J Opt Soc Am A. 1985;2:1508-1532.