Variability in Isopter Position and Fatigue during Semi-Automated Kinetic Perimetry

Nowomiejska, Katarzyna; Brzozowska, Agnieszka; Żarnowski, Tomasz; Ręjdak, Robert; Weleber, Richard G.; Schiefer, Ulrich

doi:10.1159/000333821

Cited by 12 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 50 publications

(29 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…18 In the current study, the MS values of the kinetic sensitivity at each meridian measured using III4e were 0.2 -2.3 . Although the variability was not compared easily with those obtained in previous reports because of differences FIGURE 2.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 49%

“…A previous study reported that the reaction time adjustment is an important factor that can affect the variability of the responses and the fatigue phenomenon. 18 We do not know whether the learning effect was due to a change in the criteria of the patients in deciding whether or not they saw the target, whether it was due to a reduced response time, or a combination of the two factors. Future studies are warranted to evaluate the learning effect and repeatability with the reaction time adjustment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the current study, the MS values of the kinetic sensitivity at each meridian using I4e and I2e between the second and third measurements were 0.2 and 3.8 , respectively. Another study, 18 which performed semiautomated The data are expressed as means ± standard deviations (in seconds). The significance of the differences is determined using a multipaired t-test with the Bonferroni correction (two comparisons in three groups).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The fixation of each participant in this study was monitored with a display, according to previous reports. [18][19][20][21]23,24 The Octopus 900 Perimeter adjusts for reaction time by adjusting the isopter area according to the response time for the stimulus presentation. Although many studies have discussed reaction time adjustments, [18][19][20][21][22] there is no standard for reaction time adjustment at any speed or location.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Learning Effect and Repeatability of Automated Kinetic Perimetry in Healthy Participants

Hirasawa

Shoji

2014

Current Eye Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results of the first measurement in the inexperienced participants require careful evaluation, especially for III4e and I4e measured in the peripheral areas. However, because III4e and I4e both showed good repeatability in inexperienced and experienced participants, automated kinetic perimetry may be suitable for measuring the peripheral area using higher stimulus intensities such as III4e and I4e.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 49%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Learning Effect and Repeatability of Automated Kinetic Perimetry in Healthy Participants

Hirasawa

Shoji

2014

Current Eye Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hierbei wird die Schwankungsbreite der Wahrnehmung neben der Stimulusgröße und -helligkeit v. a. von der Reaktionszeit abhän-gig. Auch konnte gezeigt werden, dass bei mehrfacher Wiederholung der Untersuchung die Gesichtsfeldfläche bei glaukomatöser Schädigung signifikant größeren Schwankungen unterliegt als bei Retinitis pigmentosa oder postchiasmaler Schädi-gung [12]. In einem Vergleich zwischen semiautomatisierter kinetischer Perimetrie und computergestützter statischer Schwellenperimetrie fanden Nevalainen et al [11] daher patientenseitig eine deutliche Bevorzugung der kinetischen Untersuchung gegenüber einer statischen Perimetrie.…”

Section: Abb 3 8 Patient Ww Nahezu Erloschenes Zentrum Bei Visus 0unclassified

Funktionsdiagnostische Möglichkeiten bei fortgeschrittenem oder präterminalem Glaukom

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The visual functional diagnostics for patients with advanced glaucomatous optic neuropathy are subject to challenge. Reduced visual acuity, instable fixation and extensive scotomata frequently lead to incorrect results within the central 30° or 24° field. Static automatic perimetry (SAP) in particular is often hampered by extended examination time and fatigue especially in older patients. Focusing of the examination towards the central 10° field using a dense test grid (2° distance between stimulus locations) allows a more exact assessment of the small remaining central island. Tailoring the examination area towards the central 10° field may be useful even in cases with a mean deviation (MD) of 15 dB. In cases of advanced visual field loss kinetic perimetry is superior to static perimetry for various reasons: sharply demarcated visual field defects can be comparatively easily delineated (edge detection); the results are more reliable because fixation can be easily controlled and fatigue is much less pronounced in this interactive examination procedure. However, manual kinetic visual field testing within the central 5° using the conventional Goldmann perimeter is almost impossible due to technical reasons. Semi-automated kinetic perimetry, presenting moving stimuli along interactively defined vectors is a useful tool under these circumstances. The standardized presentation of kinetic stimuli is also feasible within the pericentral region and has particular advantages also with regard to follow-up examinations. On the other hand, detection and delineation of small visual field remnants are comparatively difficult to handle with this kind of vector-based kinetic perimetry.

show abstract

Evaluation of stimulus velocity in automated kinetic perimetry in young healthy participants

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This prospective study aimed to evaluate the stimulus velocity for automated kinetic perimetry based on the test duration, the kinetic sensitivity, and the variability of the kinetic sensitivity in 31 eyes of 31 young healthy participants. Automated kinetic perimetry was performed using an Octopus 900 perimeter with Goldmann stimuli III4e, I4e, I3e, I2e, and I1e. The participants underwent testing at 14 predetermined meridians for each stimulus, with velocities of 2°, 3°, 4°, 5°, and 10°/s; each velocity was tested twice. The test duration, kinetic sensitivity, and variability of kinetic sensitivity were compared among the stimulus velocities. Twenty-nine eyes from 29 participants were analyzed, and two participants were excluded. The test durations at the velocities of 2°, 3°, 4°, 5°, and 10°/s were negatively correlated with the stimulus velocity (p<0.01). The variability of the kinetic sensitivities did not significantly differ among the stimulus velocities. The kinetic sensitivities at 2° and 3°/s did not differ significantly for all stimuli. However, those at 4°/s decreased for III4e, I4e, and I1e (p<0.05), and those at 5° and 10°/s decreased for all stimuli (p<0.05) compared with those at 2° or 3°/s. Although the test durations for each stimulus velocity were negatively correlated with the stimulus velocities, a stimulus velocity of 3° or 4°/s might be recommended for automated kinetic perimetry based on the changes in the kinetic sensitivity. As this study included only young participants, further studies in elderly participants may also be necessary.

show abstract

Variability in Isopter Position and Fatigue during Semi-Automated Kinetic Perimetry

Cited by 12 publications

References 50 publications

Learning Effect and Repeatability of Automated Kinetic Perimetry in Healthy Participants

Learning Effect and Repeatability of Automated Kinetic Perimetry in Healthy Participants

Funktionsdiagnostische Möglichkeiten bei fortgeschrittenem oder präterminalem Glaukom

Evaluation of stimulus velocity in automated kinetic perimetry in young healthy participants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About