IOVS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cox, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by O'Brien, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cox, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by O'Brien, C.

Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, Vol 33, 3169-3173, Copyright © 1992 by Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology

ARTICLES AND REPORTS

Comparison of computer-assisted versus manual optic nerve head pallor measurement

MJ Cox and C O'Brien
Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, UMIST, Manchester, United Kingdom.

Computerized methods of examining the optic nerve head offer the possibility of providing consistent, reliable, and accurate measurements of the nerve head. The reliability and accuracy of such instruments must be examined to confirm this. This research was undertaken to gain an insight into the accuracy of such a system, which takes its measurements by tracking the luminance boundaries of the pallor area and the optic nerve head after an observer marks the starting points. Measurements made using the computer-tracked boundary were compared with those made using a boundary tracked by an image- processing system of greater sophistication, the human visual system. The comparison was made with images from one eye from each of 30 subjects (10 normal, 10 ocular hypertensive, and 10 glaucomatous). The measurements were made by two observers. Each observer made each set of measurements twice, and the results were analyzed with a five-factor analysis of variance. The measurements made using the computerized method did not differ significantly from those made using the manual boundary tracking for the two observers, and they were highly correlated (r = 0.99 for the area pallor-disc ratio). Significant differences (P < 0.05) were found between the two observers in both the manual and computerized boundary tracking. The computerized method, however, did not find differences between the two sets of measurements made by each observer; the manual method did show such differences. The computerized method appeared to trace the luminance boundaries successfully in the image, and it might reduce errors related to the observer marking the starting points on different occasions.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1992 by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology