IOVS AJP: Advances in Physiology Education
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 Henson, D. B.
Right arrow Articles by Ansons, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Henson, D. B.
Right arrow Articles by Ansons, A.
(Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2000;41:417-421.)
© 2000 by The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.

Response Variability in the Visual Field: Comparison of Optic Neuritis, Glaucoma, Ocular Hypertension, and Normal Eyes

David B. Henson1, Shaila Chaudry1, Paul H. Artes1, E. Brian Faragher2 and Alec Ansons1

1 From the Department of Ophthalmology, University of Manchester; and 2 Department of Organisational Health Psychology, University of Manchester Institute of Science & Technology, Manchester, United Kingdom.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
PURPOSE. To compare the relationship between sensitivity and response variability in the visual field of normal eyes and eyes with optic neuritis (ON), glaucoma (POAG), and ocular hypertension (OHT).

METHODS. Frequency-of-seeing (FOS) data were collected from four visual field locations in one eye of 71 subjects (12 ON, 25 POAG, 11 OHT, and 23 normal), using a constant stimulus method on an Henson 4000 perimeter (Tinsley Instruments, Croydon, UK). At each location, at least 20 stimuli (subtending 0.5°) were presented for 200 ms at six or more intensities above and below the estimated threshold. The mean and SD of the probit fitted cumulative Normal function were used to estimate sensitivity and response variability. Cluster regression analysis was carried out to determine whether there were differences in the sensitivity-log (variability) relationship between the four groups.

RESULTS. Variability was found to increase with decreased sensitivity for all four groups. The combined data from the four groups was well represented (R2 = 0.57) by the function loge(SD) = A·sensitivity (dB) + B, where the constants A and B were -0.081 (SE, ±0.005) and 3.27 (SE, ±0.15), respectively. Including other statistically significant covariates (false-negative errors, P = 0.004) and factors (diagnosis, P = 0.005) into the model increased the proportion of explained variance to 62% (R2 = 0.62). Stimulus eccentricity (P = 0.34), patient age (P = 0.33), fixation loss rate (P = 0.10), and false-positive rate (P = 0.66) did not reach statistical significance as additional predictors of response variability.

CONCLUSIONS. The relationship between response variability and sensitivity is similar for ON, POAG, OHT, and normal eyes. These results provide supporting evidence for the hypothesis that response variability is dependent on functional ganglion cell density.


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Optic neuritis is a demyelinating condition which in its acute form gives rise to a series of symptoms, including abrupt loss of visual acuity, reduced contrast sensitivity, dyschromatopsia, ocular pain, and visual field loss. Although most visual functions show substantial recovery within 6 months of the attack, some residual visual field loss is common.1 There is also evidence of retinal nerve fiber loss in the majority of patients.2 Increased variability has been established both for the global visual field indices derived from automated static threshold perimetry3 and at individual test locations using a frequency-of-seeing (FOS) technique.4

An increase in visual field variability also occurs in primary open angle glaucoma (POAG).5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Using FOS techniques, applied to single locations within the visual field, it has been established that variability increases as the sensitivity reduces.12 13 14 15 Weber and Rau12 also investigated the relationship between sensitivity and variability in ocular hypertensive (OHT) and normal eyes. They found that peripheral locations in the visual field of OHT and normal eyes, where sensitivity is lower, demonstrated more variability.

Variability in the visual field of POAG eyes decreases with increasing stimulus size.16 17 18 19 20 21 22 This relationship has led to a hypothesis linking variability to functioning ganglion cell density.22 23 The hypothesis is based on three assumptions: (1) that individual ganglion cells give variable responses when repeatedly stimulated, (2) that adjacent ganglion cells do not vary in synchrony with each other, and (3) that there is pooling of responses from ganglion cells. The hypothesis predicts that variability increases when the number of stimulated ganglion cells is reduced, either by reduction of stimulus size or by a reduction in the density of ganglion cells.

According to this hypothesis the variability versus sensitivity relationship would be independent of the underlying cause of any ganglion cell loss. The variability versus sensitivity relationship, therefore, would be similar in POAG and ON despite the significant differences in the mechanism of nerve fiber damage and the nature (depth, location, and permanency) of the visual field defects.

The aim of this study was to establish whether there are differences in the relationship between sensitivity and response variability in ON, POAG, OHT, and normal eyes and which other variables could be clinically important predictors of response variability.


   Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Subjects
Data were collected from one eye of 12 patients with a history of optic neuritis (5 men, 7 women), 25 patients with POAG (12 M, 13 F), 11 patients with OHT (5 M, 6 F), and 23 normal subjects (13 M, 10 F).

The ON, POAG, and OHT patients were recruited from the outpatient clinics at the Manchester Royal Eye Hospital. The ON patients all had defective color vision (Ishihara), reduced visual acuity (VA; >= 6/9, equivalent to 0.18 logMAR) and a relative afferent pupillary defect. Nine patients had a history of numbness. Data were collected from these patients once their VA had returned to 6/18 or better. The interval between diagnosis and data collection ranged from 1 to 169 weeks (median, 26 weeks). The POAG patients all had glaucomatous visual field loss (AGIS score: range, 1 to 19; median, 5) combined with either (or both) glaucomatous changes the optic nerve head or a raised intraocular pressure (IOP; >21 mm Hg). OHT patients all had IOPs greater than 21 mm Hg on two separate occasions, with normal disc appearance and no visual field loss using program 24-2 and the Glaucoma Hemifield Test of the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer (HFA; Humphrey Instruments Inc., San Leandro, CA).

Normal subjects were recruited from hospital staff and had no history of ophthalmic disease, a normal ophthalmic examination, no systemic illness, and a visual acuity better than 6/9 (equivalent to 0.18 logMAR). The study was approved by the Central Manchester Research Ethics Committee and follows the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from each subject. All subjects underwent a visual field test (HFA 24-2) before the collection of FOS data. They were only included in the study if they fulfilled the HFA reliability criteria (<20% fixation losses, <33% false-positive errors, <33% false-negative errors).

Test Locations
FOS data were collected at four visual field locations during a single experimental session. For the normal and OHT eyes, the locations were 12.7° from fixation along the 45, 135, 225, and 315 meridians. For the ON and POAG eyes, one location was chosen to lie in an area where sensitivity was within normal limits and, if possible, three locations in or adjacent to a damaged area of the visual field. The damaged locations were chosen on the basis of the HFA visual field test.

Data Collection
FOS data were collected using a modified program on a Henson 4000 bowl perimeter (Tinsley Instruments, Croydon, UK). Stimuli subtended 0.5° and were presented for 200 msec. After input of the test locations, the program estimated the sensitivity at each location using the full threshold (4-2) strategy.24 For each location the program then selected five intensities that straddled the estimated threshold in steps of 2 dB. At three occasions during each session the experimenter, who received continuous feedback on the selected intensities and current responses, would interrupt the collection of data and adjust the intensities (minimum step size, 1 dB) and number of presentations to ensure that (1) the response range approached 0 and 100% seen; (2) data were collected for at least six intensities; and (3) there were a minimum of 20 presentations at each intensity. While the adjustments were being made, the subject was allowed a short rest. The presentation of stimuli was randomized with respect to intensity and location. A typical session lasted for approximately 30 minutes.

Data Analysis
The FOS data from each test location were imported into the statistical package for probit regression analysis (SPSS, Chicago, IL). The mean and SD parameters of the fitted cumulative normal function were used as estimates of sensitivity and response variability.

Cluster regression analysis25 was used as observations were independent between patients but not within patients. Suitable adjusted (robust) standard errors were computed using STATA V5 (STATA Corporation, College STN, TX) to determine the following:

  1. Whether there were differences in the relationship between sensitivity and variability for normal eyes and eyes with ON, POAG, and OHT.
  2. Whether the prediction of variability could be enhanced by the variables: diagnosis, eccentricity, patient age, fixation losses, and false-positive and -negative response rates. The fixation loss and false-positive and -negative response rates were estimated from the catch trial data of the 24-2 HFA visual field test.

A backward elimination procedure was used in which insignificant variables were removed successively from the model in order of significance to identify those factors independently contributing to the variance explained by the model.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Figure 1 gives typical FOS data along with the probit fit for a normal and a POAG eye.



View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Typical frequency-of-seeing curves from a normal control eye (A) and an eye with POAG (B). The results from the POAG eye have a shallower slope (increased variability). The line drawn through the data points is the probit fitted function along with its 95% confidence limits (dotted lines).

 
Figure 2 gives a scatter plot of log response variability versus sensitivity for all four groups (ON, POAG, OHT, and normal). As sensitivity decreases there is a dramatic increase in response variability. The data of all four groups were well described by the simple model loge(SD) = A*sensitivity + B, where parameters A and B are -0.081 (robust SE, ±0.005) and 3.27 (SE, ±0.15), respectively. This model explains 57% of the variance observed in our data (R2 = 0.57, P < 0.001). Separate regression analyses for each group produced the parameters A (slope) and B (intercept) shown in Table 1 .



View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. Variability versus sensitivity for all four groups (ON, POAG, OHT, and normal). The line drawn through the data points is the best fitting (least-squares) function.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Results of Cluster Regression by Diagnosis

 
Multivariate regression analysis with backward elimination was used to establish whether the data from the different diagnostic groups could be represented by a single model and to establish the contribution of covariates (eccentricity, age, false-positive and -negative rates, and fixation losses) to the variance explained by that model. The slopes of the sensitivity–variability relationship did not differ significantly between the four groups (P >= 0.24). Table 2 shows the contributions of the different covariates and the diagnosis factor to the variance explained by the model.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Variables and Proportion of Explained Variance after Inclusion into the Model

 
Inclusion of all covariates and the diagnosis factor increased the coefficient of determination by only a modest amount (R2 increased from 0.57 to 0.63). The significance of the diagnosis factor (P = 0.005) is due to a small difference between the intercept of the POAG group and that of the other three diagnostic groups. Accounting for the rate of false-negative responses increased the proportion of explained variance by 2%. Neither stimulus eccentricity (P = 0.34), age (P = 0.33), fixation loss rate (P = 0.10), nor false-positive response rate (P = 0.66) had a significant effect on variability.

Figure 3 gives the data from each group on separate axes along with the individual regression lines and the regression line fitted to the combined data. This figure highlights the agreement between the fit of the combined data and that of the individual groups.



View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 3. Variability versus sensitivity for all four groups (ON, POAG, OHT, and normal) separated on the basis of their diagnosis. The solid lines drawn through the data points are the best fitting (least-squares) function to the combined data set; the dashed lines are the best fitting (least-squares) functions to the individual groups.

 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
The results from this study agree with earlier work that reported an increase in the variability of visual field measures, where sensitivity had been reduced by either POAG or ON.3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 26

The relationship between sensitivity and response variability was similar between the four groups of patients. Statistical analysis did not detect differences in the slopes of the sensitivity -log(variability) relationship between the four groups. There was a statistically significant difference in the intercept between the normal, OHT, and ON groups and the POAG group, which showed less variability (18%, P = 0.005). This difference might be explained by the greater perimetric experience of the POAG group.

The pathophysiology of ON is very different from that of POAG. In acute ON there is swelling in the area of demyelination that affects the transmission of impulses along the ganglion cell axons. This can take the form of a total block, an attenuation, or an extended refractory period. In certain fibers there is a breakdown of the myelin sheath and a destruction of the ganglion cell axons, with subsequent proximal and distal degeneration. The process can occur at any location within the optic nerve and frequently involves the fibers that supply the fovea. In comparison, damage to ganglion cell axons in POAG is a slow chronic process that occurs at the optic nerve head and more frequently involves the fibers at the superior and inferior poles. The similarity between the data from all groups suggests that there is a common underlying process linking variability with sensitivity, which is independent of the pathophysiology of the two diseases (POAG and ON). A common feature of these two pathologies is the loss of functional ganglion cell axons.

The results from this study support the hypothesis that a reduction in the number of stimulated functional ganglion cells is likely to lead to decreased sensitivity and a concurrent increase in response variability.22 23 This reduction could come about via a loss of ganglion cells, such as occurs in ON and POAG, or transfer of the stimulus to the peripheral visual field.12 This hypothesis also predicts the reported reduction in variability with an increase in the stimulus size.22

In short wavelength perimetry, blue stimuli are presented on a yellow background. This type of perimetry was designed to isolate a sparse population of ganglion cells and, as a result of this, identify loss at an earlier stage.27 Short wavelength perimetry is associated with an increase in response variability.28 29 30 31 FOS curves for motion stimuli, using a line displacement test, show an increase in response variability with increasing motion threshold.32 An increase in variability with loss in sensitivity also has been reported for frequency-doubling perimetry.23 All these findings are in agreement with the hypothesis relating variability to the density of functioning ganglion cells. Some of the benefits resulting from targeting sparse, vulnerable populations may be lost due to the increased response variability associated with sparse populations.

Reliability parameters (fixation loss rate and false-positive and -negative response rates), which were extracted from the prior HFA 24-2 test, did not substantially increase the variance explained by the model. Although the false-negative response rate (P = 0.004) was a significant additional predictor of variability, when included in the model, the explained variance rose by only 2% (R2 increased from 0.60 to 0.62). The study’s inclusion criteria of good patient reliability and the poor precision of estimates of patient reliability33 may account for why these covariates did not have a larger effect on the total variance explained by the model.

In summary, the relationship between visual field sensitivity and response variability is similar in ON, POAG, OHT, and normal subjects. This finding lends support to the hypothesis that variability is dependent on functional ganglion cell density. A similar relationship between sensitivity and response variability may exist for other types of perimetric stimuli. The increased variability makes it difficult to differentiate genuine changes in the visual field from noise and, therefore, has important clinical implications. Targeting sparse populations will only be beneficial if it leads to an increase in the "signal-to-noise" ratio between defect and variability.


   Footnotes
 
Supported by The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, The Wellcome Trust, and The Manchester Royal Eye Hospital Endowment Funds.

Submitted for publication May 21, 1999; revised September 21, 1999; accepted October 5, 1999.

Commercial relationships policy: N.

Corresponding author: David B. Henson, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Manchester, Royal Eye Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WH, UK. david.henson{at}man.ac.uk


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Beck, RW, Cleary, PA, Anderson, MM, et al (1992) A randomized, controlled trial of corticosteroids in the treatment of acute optic neuritis N Engl J Med 326,581-588[Abstract]
  2. Steel, DHW, Waldock, A. (1998) Measurement of the retinal nerve fibre layer with scanning laser polarimetry in patients with previous demyelinating optic neuritis J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 64,505-509[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Wall, M, Johnson, CA, Kutzko, KE, Nguyen, R, Brito, C, Keltner, JL (1998) Long- and short-term variability of automated perimetry results in patients with optic neuritis and healthy subjects Arch Ophthalmol 116,53-61[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Patterson, VH, Foster, DH, Heron, JR (1980) Variability of visual threshold in multiple sclerosis. Effect of background luminance on frequency of seeing Brain 103,139-147[Free Full Text]
  5. Holmin, C, Krakau, CET (1979) Variability of glaucomatous visual field defects in computerised perimetry Graefes Archiv Clin Exp Ophthalmol 210,235-250
  6. Werner, E, Saheb, N, Thomas, D. (1982) Variability of static threshold responses in patients with elevated IOPs Arch Ophthalmol 100,1627-1631[Abstract]
  7. Flammer, J, Drance, S, Zulauf, M. (1984) Differential light threshold; short and long term fluctuation in patients with glaucoma, normal controls, and patients with suspected glaucoma Arch Ophthalmol 102,704-706[Abstract]
  8. Wilensky, JT, Joondeph, BC (1984) Variation in visual field measurements with an automated perimeter Am J Ophthalmol 97,328-331[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Katz, J, Sommer, A. (1986) Asymmetry and variation in the normal hill of vision Arch Ophthalmol 104,65-68[Abstract]
  10. Lewis, RA, Johnson, CA, Keltner, JL, Labermeier, PK (1986) Variability of quantitative automated perimetry in normal observers Ophthalmology 93,878-881[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Heijl, A, Lindgren, A, Lindgren, G. (1989) Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual field Am J Ophthalmol 108,130-135[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  12. Weber, J, Rau, S. (1992) The properties of perimetric thresholds in normal and glaucomatous eyes Germ J Ophthalmol 1,79-85[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Olsson, J, Heijl, A, Bengtsson, B, Rootzen, H. (1993) Frequency-of-seeing in computerised perimetry Mills, RP eds. Perimetry Update 1992/1993 ,551-556 Kugler Amsterdam.
  14. Chauhan, B, Tompkins, J, LeBlanc, R, McCormick, T. (1993) Characteristics of frequency-of-seeing curves in glaucoma in normal subjects, patients with suspected glaucoma, and patients with glaucoma Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 34,3534-3541[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Henson, DB, Chaudry, SJ, Artes, PH. () The relationship between sensitivity and variability in normal and glaucomatous visual fields Wall, M eds. Perimetry Update 1997/1999 Kugler Amsterdam. In press
  16. Wilson, ME (1967) Spatial and temporal summation in impaired regions of the visual field J Physiol 189,189-208[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Wilensky, JT, Mermelstein, JR, Siegel, HG (1986) The use of different sized stimuli in automated perimetry Am J Ophthalmol 101,710-713[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. Choplin, NT, Sherwood, MB (1990) Spaeth GL The effect of stimulus size on the measured threshold values in automated perimetry. Ophthalmology. 97,371-374
  19. Fellman, RL, Lynn, JR, Starita, RJ, Swanson, WH. (1989) Clinical importance of spatial summation in glaucoma Heijl, A eds. Perimetric Update 1988/1989 ,313-324 Kugler Amsterdam.
  20. Zalta, AH (1991) Use of a central 10 degree field and size V stimulus to evaluate and monitor small central islands of vision in end stage glaucoma Br J Ophthalmol 75,151-154[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Takashima, M, Nagata, S, Kani, K. (1993) Examination of receptive fields using automated perimeter Mills, RP eds. Perimetric Update 1992/1993 ,537-541 Kugler Amsterdam.
  22. Wall, M, Kutzo, KE, Chauhan, BC (1997) Variability in patients with glaucomatous visual field damage is reduced using size V stimuli Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 38,426-435[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Chauhan, BC, Johnson, CA (1999) Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 40,648-656[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Bebie, H, Fankhauser, F, Spahr, J. (1976) Static perimetry: strategies Acta Ophthalmol 54,325-328[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  25. Rogers, W. (1994) Regression standard errors in clustered samples Stata Technical Bulletin Reprints Volume 3 ,88-94 Stata Corporation Texas. OTHER-REF>
  26. Harms, H. (1976) Role of perimetry in assessing of optic nerve dysfunction Trans Ophthalmol Soc UK 96,363-376[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  27. Johnson, CA (1994) Selective versus nonselective losses in glaucoma J Glaucoma 3,S32-S44
  28. Moss, ID, Wild, JM, Whitaker, DJ (1995) The influence of age-related cataract in blue-on-yellow perimetry Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 36,764-773[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Wild, JM, Moss, ID, Whitaker, D, O’Neal, EC (1995) The statistical interpretation of blue-on-yellow visual field loss Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 36,1398-1410[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Wild, JM, Cubbidge, RP, Pacey, IE, Robinson, R (1998) Statistical aspects of the normal visual field in short-wavelength automated perimetry Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 39,54-63[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Nelson–Quigg, JM, Johnson, CA, Casson, EJ, Adams, AJ. (1990) Long and short term variability for perimetry of short wavelength sensitive (SWS) mechanisms [ARVO Abstract] Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 31(4),S190Abstract nr 937
  32. Westcott, MC, Fitzke, FW, Crabb, DP, Hitchins, RA (1999) Characteristics of frequency-of-seeing curves for motion stimulus in glaucoma eyes, glaucoma suspect eyes and normal eyes Vis Res 39,631-639[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Vingrys, AJ, Demirel, S. (1998) False-response monitoring during automated perimetry Optom Vis Sci 75,513-517[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]



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 page
 IOVSHome page
N. G. Strouthidis, A. Scott, A. C. Viswanathan, D. P. Crabb, and D. F. Garway-Heath
Monitoring Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression: The Effect of a Novel Spatial Filter
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., January 1, 2007; 48(1): 251 - 257.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
N. G. Strouthidis, V. Vinciotti, A. J. Tucker, S. K. Gardiner, D. P. Crabb, and D. F. Garway-Heath
Structure and Function in Glaucoma: The Relationship between a Functional Visual Field Map and an Anatomic Retinal Map
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., December 1, 2006; 47(12): 5356 - 5362.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
G. M. Verdon-Roe, M. C. Westcott, A. C. Viswanathan, F. W. Fitzke, and D. F. Garway-Heath
Exploration of the Psychophysics of a Motion Displacement Hyperacuity Stimulus
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., November 1, 2006; 47(11): 4847 - 4855.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
N. G. Strouthidis, A. Scott, N. M. Peter, and D. F. Garway-Heath
Optic disc and visual field progression in ocular hypertensive subjects: detection rates, specificity, and agreement.
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., July 1, 2006; 47(7): 2904 - 2910.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
A. J. Vingrys and A. J. Zele
Robust Indices of Clinical Data: Meaningless Means
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., December 1, 2005; 46(12): 4353 - 4357.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
P. H. Artes, D. M. Hutchison, M. T. Nicolela, R. P. LeBlanc, and B. C. Chauhan
Threshold and Variability Properties of Matrix Frequency-Doubling Technology and Standard Automated Perimetry in Glaucoma
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., July 1, 2005; 46(7): 2451 - 2457.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
A. Bjerre, J. R. Grigg, N. R. A. Parry, and D. B. Henson
Test-Retest Variability of Multifocal Visual Evoked Potential and SITA Standard Perimetry in Glaucoma
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., November 1, 2004; 45(11): 4035 - 4040.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
A. Turpin, A. M. McKendrick, C. A. Johnson, and A. J. Vingrys
Properties of Perimetric Threshold Estimates from Full Threshold, ZEST, and SITA-like Strategies, as Determined by Computer Simulation
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., November 1, 2003; 44(11): 4787 - 4795.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
P. H. Artes, D. B. Henson, R. Harper, and D. McLeod
Multisampling Suprathreshold Perimetry: A Comparison with Conventional Suprathreshold and Full-Threshold Strategies by Computer Simulation
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., June 1, 2003; 44(6): 2582 - 2587.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. Ophthalmol.Home page
P G D Spry, C A Johnson, A M McKendrick, and A Turpin
Measurement error of visual field tests in glaucoma
Br. J. Ophthalmol., January 1, 2003; 87(1): 107 - 112.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
S. K. Gardiner and D. P. Crabb
Examination of Different Pointwise Linear Regression Methods for Determining Visual Field Progression
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., May 1, 2002; 43(5): 1400 - 1407.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. Ophthalmol.Home page
S K Gardiner and D P Crabb
Frequency of testing for detecting visual field progression
Br. J. Ophthalmol., May 1, 2002; 86(5): 560 - 564.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch OphthalmolHome page
P. G. D. Spry, C. A. Johnson, A. B. Bates, A. Turpin, and B. C. Chauhan
Spatial and Temporal Processing of Threshold Data for Detection of Progressive Glaucomatous Visual Field Loss
Arch Ophthalmol, February 1, 2002; 120(2): 173 - 180.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
P. H. Artes, D. McLeod, and D. B. Henson
Response Time as a Discriminator between True- and False-Positive Responses in Suprathreshold Perimetry
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., January 1, 2002; 43(1): 129 - 132.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
P. G. D. Spry, C. A. Johnson, A. M. McKendrick, and A. Turpin
Variability Components of Standard Automated Perimetry and Frequency-Doubling Technology Perimetry
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., May 1, 2001; 42(6): 1404 - 1410.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
M. Wall, S. G. Punke, T. L. Stickney, C. F. Brito, K. R. Withrow, and R. H. Kardon
SITA Standard in Optic Neuropathies and Hemianopias: A Comparison with Full Threshold Testing
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., February 1, 2001; 42(2): 528 - 537.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 Henson, D. B.
Right arrow Articles by Ansons, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Henson, D. B.
Right arrow Articles by Ansons, A.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS