Frequency Doubling Technology and Confocal Scanning Ophthalmoscopic Optic Disc Analysis in Open-angle Glaucoma With Hemifield Defects

Wu, Ling Ling; Suzuki, Yoshiyuki; Kunimatsu, Shiho; Araie, Makoto; Iwase, Aiko; Tomita, Goji

doi:10.1097/00061198-200108000-00002

Cited by 50 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The first commercial device based on this phenomenon has been described as a valuable additional glaucoma determination by several investigators [7,8,17,22,26,28,30,36]. The FDT perimeter uses several features to detect glaucoma: focal testing of possibly damaged areas is combined with frequency-doubling illusion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing for glaucoma with frequency-doubling perimetry in normals, ocular hypertensives, and glaucoma patients

Horn

Wakili

Jünemann

et al. 2002

Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing for glaucoma with frequency-doubling perimetry in normals, ocular hypertensives, and glaucoma patients

Horn

Wakili

Jünemann

et al. 2002

Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2 Currently, standard automated perimetry (SAP) is the clinical test most often used for evaluating the visual field (VF) in these patients, however, many newer instruments are continuously being developed to improve the diagnostic yield and shorten the test duration, to help reduce the fatigue induced by the test and increase patient acceptability. [3][4][5][6][7] Frequency doubling technology (FDT) is based on a phenomenon called the 'frequency doubling illusion', which occurs when low spatial frequency (o1 cycle/degree) grating undergoes high temporal frequency (415 Hz) counterphase flicker. 3,4 This type of illusion is thought to be mediated by the magnocellular retinal ganglion cells, whose loss, probably because of reduced redundancy, may be detectable in early glaucoma.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7 The first available version of the FDT perimeter has been reported to be a good predictor of future glaucomatous damage that is not yet detectable by SAP. 6 However, it is difficult to compare original FDT findings to those obtained by SAP directly.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning effect in visual field testing of healthy subjects using Humphrey Matrix frequency doubling technology perimetry

Pierre-Filho¹,

Gomes²,

Pierre³

et al. 2009

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the learning effect of frequency doubling technology (FDT) perimetry using the Humphrey Matrix perimeter in healthy subjects with no perimetric experience. Methods One eye of 28 healthy adults who had no history of visual field testing underwent three Matrix tests using 24-2 programme with full-threshold strategy. The results of the first session were compared with those of the second, and the third sessions. Learning effect was defined as an improvement at results for duration, perimetric indices, and the number of points with a Po5 and o1% in the total and pattern deviation maps. Anderson's criteria were applied to define abnormal examinations. Results The mean in the mean deviation global index was À7.40 ± 1.49 dB in the first session, À4.64±0.97 dB in the second session, and À3.29±0.93 dB in the third session. Pattern standard deviations were decreased as the tests were repeated (Po0.01). Test duration, fixation losses, false negative, and the number of points with a Po5 and o1% in the total and pattern deviation maps rate were also changed significantly (Po0.05). Among the criteria suggested by Anderson, the Glaucoma Hemifield Test performed better in all session tests. The false-positive rates ranged from 50% (95% confidence intervals [CI] 30.6-69.4%) to 64% (95% CI 44.1-81.4%) for the first session, 29% (95% CI 13.2-48.7%) to 54% (95% CI 33.9-72.5%) for the second session, and from 18% (95% CI 6.1-36.9%) to 32% (95% CI 15.9-52.4%) for the third session. ConclusionsThe results of this study show that the learning effect for Humphrey Matrix FDT perimetry must be considered in normal individuals with no perimetric experience.

show abstract

“…This type of illusion is thought to be mediated by the magnocellular retinal ganglion cells, which are damaged in the early stages of glaucoma. Therefore, theoretically, FDT instruments may detect glaucomatous visual-field loss earlier than conventional automated perimeters [7]. However, there is some debate about whether the stimulus is also selective for the µ-subtype of the magnocellular pathways, and whether the magnocellular pathways, and specifically the µ-subtype, are preferentially lost in glaucoma [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the Humphrey Field Analyser and Humphrey Matrix Perimeter for the Evaluation of Glaucoma Patients

Chen

Wu²,

Chen³

et al. 2008

Ophthalmologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: To compare the Humphrey Matrix Perimeter (HMP) with the Humphrey Field Analyser (HFA) in visual-field examinations of patients with glaucoma or suspected glaucoma. Methods: One hundred and forty-nine patients with suspected glaucoma or glaucoma were recruited. All patients underwent visual-field examinations with the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm standard, the central 30-2 threshold test with the HFA, and the frequency doubling technique 30-2 threshold test with the HMP. The examination times, mean deviations (MDs) and pattern standard deviations (PSDs) of both perimeters were compared in all patients and according to the patient’s diagnosis or the severity of their visual-field defects (VFDs). The paired 2-tailed t test and Pearson’s correlation coefficients were used for statistical analyses. Results: Overall, the examination times were significantly shorter with the HMP than with the HFA. There was a positive correlation between the HFA and HMP measurements of MD and PSD. In patients with suspected glaucoma, the PSDs measured with the HMP were significantly higher than those measured with the HFA. In patients with mild VFDs (MD >–4.0 dB), PSDs measured with the HMP were significantly higher than those measured with the HFA. In patients with severe VFDs (MD <–12.0 dB), MDs measured with the HMP were significantly higher than those measured with the HFA, whereas PSDs measured with the HMP were significantly lower than those measured with the HFA. Conclusions: The HMP is more time efficient than the HFA in visual-field examinations. The HMP tends to overestimate mild VFDs and underestimate severe VFDs.

show abstract

Frequency Doubling Technology and Confocal Scanning Ophthalmoscopic Optic Disc Analysis in Open-angle Glaucoma With Hemifield Defects

Abstract: Frequency doubling technology can detect glaucomatous damage earlier than conventional static perimetry can.

Cited by 50 publications

References 18 publications

Testing for glaucoma with frequency-doubling perimetry in normals, ocular hypertensives, and glaucoma patients

Testing for glaucoma with frequency-doubling perimetry in normals, ocular hypertensives, and glaucoma patients

Learning effect in visual field testing of healthy subjects using Humphrey Matrix frequency doubling technology perimetry

Comparison of the Humphrey Field Analyser and Humphrey Matrix Perimeter for the Evaluation of Glaucoma Patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About