Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Manipulation of sensitivity in visual field investigation

  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sophistication of computer software and flexibility of stimulus and background luminance parameters in static perimeter design offer the opportunity for increased information in the assessment of the visual field. Relationships between dynamic ranges and resulting sensitivity gradients in a group of 10 normal 21 year old subjects using the Octopus automated perimeter, the Dicon Autoperimeter 2000 and the Friedmann VFA II are assessed. Inadequacies in the use of normative data to assess the visual field are noted. Implications for the use of dynamic range/sensitivity gradient relationships in visual field assessment without reliance on normative data are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Batko KA, Anctil J and Anderson DR (1983) Detecting glaucomatous damage with the Friedmann Analyser compared with the Goldmann perimeter and evaluation of stereoscopic photographs of the optic disk. Amer J Ophthal 95:435–447

    Google Scholar 

  • Drasdo N (1984) A method of presenting full field images with minimal distortion. Vision Res 24: 1991–1994

    Google Scholar 

  • Fankhauser F (1979) Problems related to the design of automatic perimeters. Docum Ophthal 47:89–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan JG, Wild JM, Barnes DA, Gilmartin BA, Good PA and Crews SJ (1984) The qualitative comparative analysis of the visual field using computer assisted, semiautomated and manual instrumentation: III Clinical analysis. Docum Ophthal 58:341–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Greve EL (1971) Visual field analyser and threshold. Brit J Ophthal 55:704–708

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths SN, Barnes DA and Drasdo N (1984) A method of measuring the light scattering properties of the cornea and chrystalline lens using the contrast sensitivity function. Proceedings of the First International Congress: BCOO, London, April 1984, Vol 2:173–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutteridge IF (1983) The working threshold approach to Friedmann Visual Field Analyser screening. Ophthal Physiol Opt 3:41–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart WM and Gordon MO (1983) Calibration of the Dicon Auto Perimeter 2000 compared with that of the Goldmann Perimeter. Amer J Ophthal 96:744–750

    Google Scholar 

  • Henson DB, Dix SM and Oborne AC (1984) Evaluation of the Friedmann Visual Field Analyser Mark II: Results from a normal population. Brit J Ophthal 68:458–462

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulsson LE and Sjostrand J (1980) Contrast sensitivity in the presence of glare light. Invest Ophthal Vis Sci 19:401–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmied U (1980) Automatic (Octopus) and manual (Goldmann) perimetry in glaucoma. Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthal 213:239–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloane LL (1961) Area and luminance of test object as variables in examination of the visual field by projection perimetry. Vision Res 1: 121–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Wild JM, Barnes DA, Flanagan JG, Good PA and Crews SJ (1984a) A proposed modification for suprathreshold visual field investigation with the Friedmann VFA II. Submitted to Acta Ophthal

  • Wild JM, Flanagan JG, Barnes DA, Gilmartin BG, Good PA and Crews SJ (1984b) The qualitative comparative analysis of the visual field using computer assisted, semi-automated and manual instrumentation: II Statistical analysis. Docum Ophthal 58:325–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams RA, Enoch JM and Essock EA (1984) The persistance of selected hyperacuity configurations to retinal image degradation. Invest Ophthal Vis Sci 25:389–399

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ophthalmic Optics Clinic, Department of Vision Sciences, University of Aston, B4 7ET, Birmingham, Great Britain

    D. A. Barnes & J. M. Wild

  2. Clinical Neurophysiology Unit, Department of Vision Sciences, University of Aston, B4 7ET, Birmingham, Great Britain

    J. G. Flanagan

  3. Retina Department, Birmingham and Midland Eye Hospital, B3 2NS, Birmingham, Great Britain

    P. A. Good & S. J. Crews

Authors
  1. D. A. Barnes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. M. Wild
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. G. Flanagan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. A. Good
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. J. Crews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barnes, D.A., Wild, J.M., Flanagan, J.G. et al. Manipulation of sensitivity in visual field investigation. Doc Ophthalmol 59, 301–308 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00159165

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00159165

Keywords

Search

Navigation