The Normal Visual Field on the Humphrey Field Analyzer

Brenton, Randall S.; Phelps, Charles D.

doi:10.1159/000309679

Cited by 99 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several investigations (1)(2)4,7,10,12) have found a lower visual sensitivity in superior hemifield compared with the inferior one, which is also in agreement with our results (Table 7). It is also remarkable that this difference of visual sensitivity may not be explained by a possible blepharoptosis, once in previous and present studies those subjects had been excluded from the evaluation.…”

Section: Influence Of Eccentricitysupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Data provided by the current study are in accordance with those reported by several investigators (2,4,(7)(8)(9)(10) concerning visual sensitivity significant decrease with age, even using differentiated autoperimeters, strategies, programs and examination conditions. It is important to remark that a study (6) undertaken with normal subjects (n=562) divided into non-homogeneous age groups was not able to show that the non-linear function, with R 2 superior to the others, was statistically better than the linear one.…”

Section: Average Retinal Sensitivity and Agesupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Those authors have also admitted that in the absence of significant influence of preretinal factors, neural losses have been associated with variations in sensitivity of visual field due to aging (12) . Other studies (7,(9)(10)(11) have indicated that the variation spectrum of interindividual sensitivity related to eccentricity is large. Variability of visual sensitivity threshold basically depends on the patient's age and the site tested (13) .…”

Section: Influence Of Eccentricitymentioning

confidence: 94%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Visual field (Octopus 1-2-3) in normal subjects divided into homogeneous age-groups

Calixto¹,

Santos²,

Cronemberger³

2006

Arq. Bras. Oftalmol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Influence Of Eccentricitysupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Average Retinal Sensitivity and Agesupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Influence Of Eccentricitymentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Visual field (Octopus 1-2-3) in normal subjects divided into homogeneous age-groups

Calixto¹,

Santos²,

Cronemberger³

2006

Arq. Bras. Oftalmol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…(1) appraisal of the hill of vision at each test location of the stimulus grid individually (Goldmann 1945;Brenton & Phelps 1986;Iwase et al 1988;Zulauf et al 1994a;Koller et al 2001), disregarding the correlation between neighbouring points (Lachenmayr et al 1995), or (2) introduction of VF indices for the averaging of threshold values over certain VF areas (Haas et al 1986;Katz & Sommer 1986;Lachenmayr et al 1994;Zulauf et al 1994b), disregarding local characteristics of the VF.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Age‐dependent normative values for differential luminance sensitivity in automated static perimetry using the Octopus 101

Hermann

Paetzold

Vonthein

et al. 2008

Acta Ophthalmologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT.Purpose: To determine age-dependent normative differential threshold values for the Octopus 101 instrument and to create a smooth mathematical model characterizing the age-dependency and asymmetry of the hill of vision. Methods: Static automated perimetry within the central 30°visual field (VF) was conducted with the Octopus 101 (background luminance 10 cd ⁄ m 2 ) in 81 eyes of 81 ophthalmologically healthy subjects (11-12 per decade of age) aged 10-79 years. A 4-2-2 staircase strategy with three reversals was run. The test point grid consisted of 68 concentrically arranged points with test point condensation towards the VF centre, representing the approximately rotation-symmetrical 30°hill of vision. Thresholds of differential luminance sensitivity (DLS) were estimated by the maximum likelihood method. A smooth mathematical model was fitted to the normative data. Results: The model fit was satisfactory (r 2 = 0.74). Covariables were: age, eccentricity, angle and subject. Total random standard deviation (SD) was 1.75 dB. The residual SD exceeded 1.75 dB in the border region, was 1.5 dB within the centre and fell below 1.25 dB in a ring around the centre. Average thresholds of DLS varied with age quadratically. It is close to constant for the 10-40-year-old age group and declines ever more steeply thereafter. The effect of age on DLS in the VF increased with eccentricity. The greatest drop was located in the peripheral superior hemifield: at 25°eccentricity the superior DLS was estimated to be 5.5 dB higher in 10-year-olds than in 75-year-olds. Conclusions: This new smooth model allows for the prediction of age-related normal threshold values for any stimulus location within the 30°VF and thus for the calculation of global and local measures of defect such as mean defects or p-values for any type of stimulus.

show abstract

“…*Participants with peripheral vision loss who were not able to complete the auditory-visual localization task in peripheral space. Sensitivity (DLS) from 36° to 1° (Brenton & Phelps, 1986). The luminance of the visual stimulus was also increased for participants with vision loss, where necessary, to increase the reliability of the visual stimulus.…”

Section: Apparatus and Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

Multisensory cue combination after sensory loss: Audio-visual localization in patients with progressive retinal disease.

Garcia

Jones

Reeve

et al. 2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

'Multisensory cue combination after sensory loss : audio-visual localization in patients with progressive retinal disease.', Journal of experimental psychology : human perception and performance., 43 (4). pp. 729-740. Further information on publisher's website:https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000344Publisher's copyright statement:c 2016 APA, all rights reserved. This article may not exactly replicate the nal version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record.Additional information: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractHuman adults can combine perceptual estimates from different senses to minimize uncertainty, by taking a reliability-weighted average, (the maximum likelihood estimate, MLE). While research has shown that healthy human adults re-weight estimates as their reliability changes from one trial to the next, less is known about how humans adapt to gradual long-term changes in sensory reliability. This study assessed whether individuals diagnosed with progressive visual deterioration, due to retinal disease, combined auditory and visual cues to location according to optimal (MLE) predictions. Twelve patients with central visual loss, 10 patients with peripheral visual loss, and 12 normally sighted adults were asked to localize visual and/or auditory targets in central (1°-18°) and peripheral (36°-53°) locations.Normally sighted adults and patients with peripheral visual loss showed multisensory uncertainty reduction and cue weighting in line with MLE predictions. In contrast, patients with central visual loss did not weight estimates appropriately in either the center or the periphery, and failed to meet MLE predictions in the periphery. Our results show that one visual loss patient group succeeded at optimal cue combination, whilst the other patient group (patients with central vision loss) did not. We propose that sensory remapping due to changes in fixation behavior may contribute to apparent failures in the latter group.

show abstract

The Normal Visual Field on the Humphrey Field Analyzer

Cited by 99 publications

References 5 publications

Visual field (Octopus 1-2-3) in normal subjects divided into homogeneous age-groups

Visual field (Octopus 1-2-3) in normal subjects divided into homogeneous age-groups

Age‐dependent normative values for differential luminance sensitivity in automated static perimetry using the Octopus 101

Multisensory cue combination after sensory loss: Audio-visual localization in patients with progressive retinal disease.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About