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


     


(Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2003;44:2582-2587.)
© 2003 by The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
DOI:  10.1167/iovs.02-1036

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
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
Right arrow Citation Map
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Artes, P. H.
Right arrow Articles by McLeod, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Artes, P. H.
Right arrow Articles by McLeod, D.

Multisampling Suprathreshold Perimetry: A Comparison with Conventional Suprathreshold and Full-Threshold Strategies by Computer Simulation

Paul H. Artes, David B. Henson, Robert Harper, and David McLeod

From the Research Group in Eye and Vision Science School of Medicine, University of Manchester, United Kingdom.

PURPOSE. To compare a multisampling suprathreshold strategy with conventional suprathreshold and full-threshold strategies in detecting localized visual field defects and in quantifying the area of loss.

METHODS. Probability theory was applied to examine various suprathreshold pass criteria (i.e., the number of stimuli that have to be seen for a test location to be classified as normal). A suprathreshold strategy that requires three seen or three missed stimuli per test location (multisampling suprathreshold) was selected for further investigation. Simulation was used to determine how the multisampling suprathreshold, conventional suprathreshold, and full-threshold strategies detect localized field loss. To determine the systematic error and variability in estimates of loss area, artificial fields were generated with clustered defects (0–25 field locations with 8- and 16-dB loss) and, for each condition, the number of test locations classified as defective (suprathreshold strategies) and with pattern deviation probability less than 5% (full-threshold strategy), was derived from 1000 simulated test results.

RESULTS. The full-threshold and multisampling suprathreshold strategies had similar sensitivity to field loss. Both detected defects earlier than the conventional suprathreshold strategy. The pattern deviation probability analyses of full-threshold results underestimated the area of field loss. The conventional suprathreshold perimetry also underestimated the defect area. With multisampling suprathreshold perimetry, the estimates of defect area were less variable and exhibited lower systematic error.

CONCLUSIONS. Multisampling suprathreshold paradigms may be a powerful alternative to other strategies of visual field testing. Clinical trials are needed to verify these findings.





This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
IOVSHome page
A. Turpin, D. Jankovic, and A. M. McKendrick
Retesting Visual Fields: Utilizing Prior Information to Decrease Test-Retest Variability in Glaucoma
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., April 1, 2007; 48(4): 1627 - 1634.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2003 by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology