Abstract
This chapter summarizes various techniques that are used for evaluation of the visual field in glaucoma and the psychophysical and physiological basis for this diagnostic test procedure. A description of the types of perimetry that can be utilized clinically is also presented. Additionally, relationships between structural damage and visual field sensitivity loss produced by glaucoma, methods for evaluation of visual fields for detection and monitoring progression of glaucoma, a cook book for evaluation of visual fields, advantages and disadvantages of other specialized visual field test procedures, and the role that visual field testing plays in the management of glaucoma patients are also discussed. An extensive reference list is also included for readers who are interested in pursuing more detail pertaining to a particular area of the content in this chapter, and figures are presented to highlight many of the points that are drawn in this chapter. The overall intent of this chapter is to provide a practical guide for the clinician to utilize for the management of glaucoma patients and individuals at risk of developing glaucoma.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Guitierrez P, Wilson MR, Johnson C, Gordon M, Cioffi GA, Ritch R, Sherwood M, Meng K, Mangione CM. Influence of glaucomatous visual field loss on health-related quality of life. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115:777–84.
Parrish RK, Gedde SJ, Scott IU, Feuer WJ, Schiffman JC, Mangione CM, Montenegro-Pinella A. Visual function and quality of life among patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115:1447–55.
Mills RP, Janz NK, Wren PA, Guire KE. Correlation of visual field with quality-of-life measures at diagnosis in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS). J Glaucoma. 2001;10:192–8.
Iester M, Zingirian M. Quality of life in patients with early, moderate and advanced glaucoma. Eye. 2002;16:44–9.
Nelson P, Aspinall P, Papasouliotis O, Worton B, O’Brien C. Quality of life in glaucoma and its relationship with visual function. J Glaucoma. 2003;12:139–50.
Ringsdorf L, McGwin G, Owlsey C. Visual field defects and vision-specific health-related quality of life in African Americans and whites with glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2006;15:414–8.
Freeman EE, Munoz B, West SK, Jampel HD, Friedman DS. Glaucoma and quality of life: the Salisbury Eye evaluation. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:233–8.
McKean-Cowdin R, Wang Y, Wu J, Azen SP, Varma R, Los Angeles Latino Eye Study Group. Impact of visual field loss on health-related quality of life in glaucoma: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:941–8.
Piltz JR, Swindale NV, Drance SM. Vernier thresholds and alignment bias in control, suspect and glaucomatous eyes. J GAlaucoma. 1993;2:87–95.
McKendrick AM, Johnson CA, Anderson AJ, Fortune B. Elevated vernier acuity thresholds in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:1393–9.
Sponsel WE, DePaul KL, Martone JF, Shields MB, Ollie AR, Stweart WC. Association of Vistech contrast sensitivity and visual field findings in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1991;75:558–60.
McKendrick AM, Sampson GP, Walland MJ, Badcock DR. Contrast sensitivity changes due to glaucoma and normal aging: low-spatial-frequency losses in both magnocellular and parvocellular pathways. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:2115–22.
Hot A, Dul MW, Swanson WH. Development and evaluation of a contrast sensitivity perimetry test for patients with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:3049–57.
Sun H, Swanson WH, Arvidson B, Dul M. Assessment of contrast gain signature in inferred magnocellular and parvocellular pathways in patients with glaucoma. Vis Res. 2008;48:2633–41.
Caprioli J. Correlation of visual function with optic nerve and nerve fiber layer structure in glaucoma. Surv Ophthalmol. 1989;33(Suppl):319–30.
Johnson CA, Cioffi GA, Liebmann JR, Sample PA, Zangwill L, Weinreb RN. The relationship between structural and functional alterations in glaucoma: a review. Semin Ophthalmol. 2000;15:221–33.
Garway-Heath D, Poinoosawmy D, Fitzke F, Hitchings R. Mapping the visual field to the optic disc in normal tension glaucoma eyes. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:1809–15.
Gardiner SK, Johnson CA, Cioffi GA. Evaluation of the structure-function relationship in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:3712–7.
Strouthidis NG, Vinciotti V, Tucker AJ, Gardiner SK, Crabb DP, Garway-Heath DF. Structure and function in glaucoma: the relationship between a functional visual field map and an anatomic retinal map. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:5356–62.
Racette L, Medieros FA, Bowd C, Zangwill LM, Weinreb RN, Sample PA. The impact of the perimetric measurement scale, sample composition, and statistical method on the structure-function relationship in glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2007;16:676–84.
Harwerth RS, Charles F. Prentice Award Lecture 2006: a neuron doctrine for glaucoma. Optom Vis Sci. 2008;85:436–44.
Hood DC, Kardon RH. A framework for comparing functional and structural measures of glaucomatous damage. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2007;26:688–710.
Greve EL. Single and multiple stimulus static perimetry in glaucoma; the two phases of perimetry. Doc Ophthalmol. 1973;36:1–355.
Anderson DR, Patella VM. Automated static perimetry. St Louis: CV Mosby; 1990.
Harrington DO, Drake MV. The visual fields – text and atlas of clinical perimetry. St Louis: CV Mosby; 1990.
Wall M, Johnson CA. Principals and techniques of the examination of the visual sensory system, Chapter 2. In: Walsh and Hoyt’s textbook of Neuro-Ophthalmology, vol. 1. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkens; 2005. p. 83–149.
Dolderer J, Vonthein R, Johnson CA, Schiefer U, Hart W. Scotoma mapping by semi-automated kinetic perimetry – the effects of stimulus properties and the speed of subjects’ responses. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2006;84:338–44.
Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Cello KE, Bandermann SE, Edwards MA, Kass MA, Gordon MO, The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group. Classification of visual field abnormalities in the ocular hypertension treatment study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:643–50.
Katz J, Sommer A. Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests. Arch Ophthalmol. 1988;106:1252–4.
Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Beck RW, Cleary PA, Spurr JO, the Optic Neuritis Study Group. Quality control functions of the Visual Field Reading Center (VFRC) for the Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial (ONTT). Control Clin Trials. 1993;14:143–59.
Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Cello KE, Bandermann SE, Fan JJ, Levine RA, Kass MA, Gordon MO, Ocular Hypertension Study Group. Visual field quality control in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS). J Glaucoma. 2007;16:665–9.
Anderson DR. Perimetry with and without automation. St Louis: CV Mosby; 1987.
Artes PH, Henson DB, Marper R, McLeod D. Multisampling suprathreshold perimetry: a comparison with conventional suprathreshold and full-threshold strategies by computer simulation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:2582–7.
Henson DB, Artes PH. New developments in suprathreshold perimetry. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2002;22:462–8.
Henson DB. Visual field screening and the development of a new screening program. J Am Optom Assoc. 1989;60:893–8.
Langerhorst CT, Bakker D, Raakman MA. Usefulness of the Henson Central Field Screener for the detection of visual field defects, especially in glaucoma. Doc Ophthalmol. 1989;72:279–85.
Johnson CA, Keltner JL. Automated suprathreshold static perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 1980;89:731–41.
Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Balestrery FG. Suprathreshold static perimetry in glaucoma and other optic nerve disease. Ophthalmology. 1979;86:1278–86.
Araujo ML, Feuer WJ, Anderson DR. Evaluation of baseline-related suprathreshold testing for quick determination of visual field nonprogression. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111:365–9.
Hernandez R, Rabindranath K, Fraser C, Vale L, Blanco AA, Burr JM, OAG Screening Group. Screening for open angle glaucoma: systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies. J Glaucoma. 2008;17:159–68.
Javitt J, Lee P, Lum F. The value of regular examinations to detect glaucoma and other chronic conditions among older Americans. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:833–4.
Nelson-Quigg JM, Cello KE, Johnson CA. Predicting binocular visual field sensitivity from monocular visual field results. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:2212–21.
Crabb DP, Viswanathan AC. Integrated visual fields: a new approach to measuring the binocular field of view and visual disability. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;243:210–6.
Owen VM, Crabb DP, White ET, Viswanathan AC, Garway-Heath DF, Hitchings RA. Glaucoma and fitness to drive: using binocular visual fields to predict a milestone to blindness. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:2449–55.
Kotecha A, O’Leary N, Melmoth D, Grant S, Crabb D. The functional consequences of glaucoma for eye-hand coordination. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50(1):203–13.
Jampel HD, Friedman DS, Quigley H, Miller R. Correlation of the binocular visual field with patient assessment of vision. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:1059–67.
Stiles WS. Increment thresholds and the mechanisms of colour vision. Doc Ophthalmol. 1949;3:138–65.
Kitahara K, Tamaki R, Noji J, Kandatsu A, Matsuzaki H. Extrafoveal Stiles π mechanisms. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser. 1982;35:397–404.
Kranda K, King-Smith PE. What can color thresholds tell us about the nature of underlying detection mechanisms? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1984;4:83–7.
Sample PA, Weinreb RN, Boynton RM. Isolating color vision loss of primary open angle glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1988;106:686–91.
Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Color perimetry for assessment of primary open angle glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1990;31:1869–75.
Sample RA, Weinreb RN. Progressive color visual field loss in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1992;33:2068–71.
Sample PA, Martinezz GA, Weinreb RN. Short-wavelength automated perimetry without lens density testing. Am J Ophthalmol. 1994;118:632–41.
Sample PA, Johnson CA, Haegerstrom-Portnoy G, Adams AJ. Optimum parameters for short-wavelength automated perimetry. J Glaucoma. 1996;5:375–83.
Sample PA, Martinez GA, Weinreb RN. Color visual fields: a 5 year prospective study in eyes with primary open angle glaucoma. In: Mills RP, editor. Perimetry update 1992/93. New York: Kugler Publications; 1993. p. 473–6.
Sample PA, Taylor JD, Martinez GA, Lusky M, Weinreb RN. Short wavelength color visual fields in glaucoma suspects at risk. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993;115:225–33.
Sample PA, Medieros FA, Racette L, Pascual JP, Boden C, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, Weinreb RN. Identifying glaucomatous vision loss with visual-function-specific perimetry in the diagnostic innovations in glaucoma study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:3381–9.
Racette L, Sample PA. Short-wavelength automated perimetry. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2003;16:227–36.
Sample PA. Short-wavelength automated perimetry: its role in the clinic and for understanding ganglion cell function. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2000;19:369–83.
Johnson CA, Adams AJ, Casson EJ, Brandt JD. Blue-on-yellow perimetry can predict the development of glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111:645–50.
Johnson CA, Adams AJ, Casson EJ, Brandt JD. Progression of early glaucomatous visual field loss for blue-on-yellow and standard white-on-white automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111:651–6.
Johnson CA, Brandt JD, Khong AM, Adams AJ. Short wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP) in low, medium and high risk ocular hypertensives: initial baseline findings. Arch Ophthalmol. 1995;113:70–6.
Johnson CA, Adams AJ, Casson EJ. Blue-on-yellow perimetry: a five year overview. In: Mills RP, editor. Perimetry update 1992/93. New York: Kugler Publications; 1993. p. 459–66.
Johnson CA. Selective vs nonselective losses in glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 1994;3:S32–44 (Feature Issue – Journal Supplement).
Demirel S, Johnson CA. Incidence and prevalence of Short Wavelength Automated Perimetry (SWAP) deficits in ocular hypertensive patients. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001;131:709–15.
Demirel S, Johnson CA. Isolation of short wavelength sensitive mechanisms in normal and glaucomatous visual field regions. J Glaucoma. 2000;9:63–73.
Demirel S, Johnson CA. Short Wavelength Automated Perimetry (SWAP) in ophthalmic practice. J Am Optom Assoc. 1996;67:451–6.
Casson EJ, Johnson CA, Shapiro LR. A longitudinal comparison of temporal modulation perimetry to white-on-white and blue-on-yellow perimetry in ocular hypertension and early glaucoma. J Opt Soc Am. 1993;10:1792–806.
Lewis RA, Johnson CA, Adams AJ. Automated static visual field testing and perimetry of short-wavelength-sensitive (SWS) mechanisms in patients with asymmetric intraocular pressures. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1993;231:274–8.
Sit AJ, Medieros FA, Weinreb RN. Short-wavelength automated perimetry can predict glaucomatous visual field loss by ten years. Semin Ophthalmol. 2004;19:122–4.
Turpin A, Johnson CA, Spry PGD. Development of a maximum likelihood procedure for Short Wavelength Automated Perimetry (SWAP). In: Wall M, Mills RP, editors. Perimetry update 2000/2001. The Hague: Kugler Publications; 2001. p. 139–47.
Bengtsson B. A new rapid threshold algorithm for short-wavelength automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:1388–94.
Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Normal intersubject threshold variability and normal limits of the SITA SWAP and full threshold SWAP perimetric programs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:5029–34.
Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Diagnostic sensitivity of fast blue-yellow and standard automated perimetry in early glaucoma: a comparison between different test programs. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:1092–7.
Keltner JL, Johnson CA. Short Wavelength Automated Perimetry (SWAP) in neuro-ophthalmologic disorders. Arch Ophthalmol. 1995;113:475–81.
Kelly DH. Frequency doubling in visual responses. J Opt Soc Am A. 1966;56:1628–33.
Kelly DH. Nonlinear visual responses to flickering sinusoidal gratings. J Opt Soc Am. 1981;71:1051–5.
Richards W, Felton DB. Spatial frequency doubling: retinal or central? Vision Res. 1973;13:2129–37.
Tyler CW. Observations on spatial frequency doubling. Perception. 1974;3:81–6.
Virsu V, Nyman G, Lehtio PK. Diphasic and polyphasic temporal modulations multiply apparent spatial frequency. Perception. 1974;3:323–36.
Tolhurst DJ. Illusory shifts in spatial frequency caused by temporal modulation. Perception. 1975;4:331–5.
Virsu V, Laurinen P. Long-lasting afterimages caused by neural adaptation. Vision Res. 1977;17:853–60.
Maddess T, Henry H. Performance of nonlinear visual units in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Clin Vis Sci. 1992;7:371–83.
Johnson CA, Samuels SJ. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss using the frequency-doubling contrast test. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38:413–25.
Fujimoto N, Adachi-Usami E. Frequency doubling perimetry in resolved optic neuritis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:2558–60.
Wall M, Neahring RK, Woodward KR. Sensitivity and specificity of frequency doubling perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic disorders: a comparison with conventional automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:1277–83.
Girkin CA, McGwin G, DeLeon-Ortega J. Frequency doubling technology perimetry in non-arteritic ischaemic optic neuropathy with altitudinal defects. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88:1274–9.
Sheu SJ, Chen YY, Lin HC, Chen HL, Lee IY, Wu TT. Frequency doubling technology perimetry in retinal disease – preliminary report. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2001;17:25–8.
Parikh R, Naik M, Mathai A, Kuriakose T, Muliyil J, Thomas R. Role of frequency doubling technology perimetry in screening of diabetic retinopathy. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2006;54:17–22.
White AJ, Sun H, Swanson WH, Lee BB. An examination of physiological mechanisms underlying the frequency-doubling illusion. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:3590–9.
Zeppieri M, Demirel S, Kent K, Johnson CA. Perceived spatial frequency of sinusoidal gratings. Optom Vis Sci. 2008;85:318–29.
Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Frequency doubling technology perimetry. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2003;16:213–25.
Anderson AJ, Johnson CA, Fingeret M, Keltner JL, Spry PGD, Wall M, Werner JS. Characteristics of the normative database for the Humphrey Matrix perimeter. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:1540–8.
Clement CI, Goldberg I, Graham S, Healey PR. Humphrey matrix frequency doubling perimetry for detection of visual field defects in open-angle glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93(5):582–8.
Brusini P, Salvatet ML, Zeppieri M, Parisi L. Frequency doubling technology perimetry with the Humphrey Matrix 30-2 test. J Glaucoma. 2006;15:77–83.
Spry PG, Hussin HM, Sparrow JM. Clinical evaluation of frequency doubling perimetry using the Humphrey Matrix 24-2 threshold strategy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:1031–5.
Taravati P, Woodward KR, Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Redline D, Carolan J, Huang CQ, Wall M. Sensitivity and specificity of the Humphrey Matrix to detect homonymous hemianopias. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:924–8.
Huang CQ, Carolan J, Redline D, Taravati P, Woodward KR, Johnson CA, Wall M, Keltner JL. Humphrey Matrix perimetry in optic nerve and chiasmal disorders: comparison with Humphrey SITA standard 24-2. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:917–23.
Johnson CA, Wall M, Fingeret M, Lalle P. A primer for frequency doubling technology perimetry. Skaneateles: Welch Allyn; 1998.
Spry PGD, Johnson CA, Anderson AJ, Gunvant P, Fingeret M, Keltner JL, Wall M, Werner JS. A primer for Frequency Doubling Technology (FDT) perimetry using the Humphrey Matrix. Skaneateles: Welch Allyn; 2008.
Artes PH, Hutchison DM, Nicolela MT, LeBlanc RP, Chauhan BC. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:2451–7.
Johnson CA, Cioffi GA, Van Buskirk EM. Evaluation of two screening tests for frequency doubling technology perimetry. In: Wall, M, Wild JM, editors, Perimetry Update 1998/1999. Amsterdam: Kugler Publications; 1999. p. 103–9.
Spry PG, Hussin HM, Sparrow JM. Performance of the 24-2-5 frequency doubling technology screening test: a prospective case study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91:1345–9.
Gonzalez-Hernandez M, Garcia-Feijoo J, Mendez MS, de la Rosa MG. Combined spatial, contrast, and temporal functions perimetry in mild glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2004;14:514–22.
Gonzalez-Hernandez M, de la Rosa MG, de la Vega RR, Hernandex-Vidal A. Long-term fluctuation of standard automated perimetry, pulsar perimetry and frequency doubling technology in early glaucoma diagnosis. Ophthalmic Res. 2007;39:338–43.
Zeppieri M, Brusini P, Parisi L, Johnson CA, Sampaolesi R, Salvatet ML. Pulsar perimetry in the diagnosis of early glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;149:102–12.
Salvatet ML, Zeppieri M, Parisi L, Johnson CA, Sampaolesi R, Brusini P. Learning effect and test-retest variability of pulsar perimetry. J Glaucoma. 2013;22:230–7.
Ruben S, Fitzke F. Correlation of peripheral displacement thresholds and optic disc parameters in ocular hypertension. Br J Ophthalmol. 1994;78:291–4.
Johnson CA, Marshall D, Eng K. Displacement threshold perimetry in glaucoma using a Macintosh computer system and a 21 inch monitor. In: Mills RP, Wall M, editors. Perimetry update 1994/95. Amsterdam: Kugler Publications; 1995.p. 103–10.
Westcott MC, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Abnormal motion displacement thresholds are associated with fine scale luminance sensitivity loss in glaucoma. Vision Res. 1998;38:3171–80.
Wall M, Ketoff KM. Random dot motion perimetry in patients with glaucoma and in normal subjects. Am J Ophthalmol. 1995;120:587–96.
Wall M, Jennisch CS, Munden PM. Motion perimetry identifies nerve fiber bundlelike defects in ocular hypertension. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115:26–33.
Wall M, Jennisch CS. Random dot motion stimuli are more sensitive than light stimuli for detection of visual field loss in ocular hypertension patients. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76:550–7.
Joffe KM, Raymond JE, Chrichton A. Motion coherence perimetry in glaucoma and suspected glaucoma. Vision Res. 1997;37:955–64.
Bosworth CF, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Perimetric motion thresholds are elevated in glaucoma suspects and glaucoma patients. Vision Res. 1997;37:1989–97.
Bosworth CF, Sample PA, Gupta N, Bathija R, Weinreb RN. Motion automated perimetry identifies early glaucomatous field defects. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116:1153–8.
Silverman SE, Trick GL, Hart WM. Motion perception is abnormal in primary open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1990;31:722–9.
Bullimore MA, Wood JA, Swenson K. Motion perception in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993;34:3526–33.
Bosworth CF, Sample PA, Williams JM, Zangwill L, Kee B, Weinreb RN. Spatial relationships of motion automated perimetry and optic disc topography in patients with glaucomatous optic neuropathy. J Glaucoma. 1999;8:281–9.
Sample PA, Bosworth CF, Blumenthal EZ, Girkin C, Weinreb RN. Visual function-specific perimetry for indirect comparison of different ganglion cell populations in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:1783–90.
Shabana N, Cornilleau PV, Carkeet A, Chew PT. Motion perception in glaucoma patients: a review. Surv Ophthalmol. 2003;48:92–106.
Johnson CA, Scobey RP. Foveal and peripheral displacement thresholds as a function of stimulus luminance, line length and duration of movement. Vision Res. 1980;20:709–15.
Yoshiyama KK, Johnson CA. Which method of flicker perimetry is most effective for detection of glaucomatous visual field loss ? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38:2270–7.
McKendrick AM, Johnson CA. Temporal properties of vision, Adler’s physiology of the eye. 10th ed. In: Alm A, Kaufmann P, editors. Section 9: visual perception, Chapter 20. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby; 2002. p. 511–30.
Tyler CW. Specific deficits of flicker sensitivity in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1981;100:135–46.
Lachenmayr BJ, Drance SM, Douglas GR, Mikelberg FS. Light-sense, flicker and resolution perimetry in glaucoma: a comparative study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1991;229:246–51.
Lachenmayr BJ, Drance SM, Chauhan BC, House PH, Lalani S. Diffuse and localized glaucomatous field loss in light-sense, flicker and resolution perimetry. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1991;229:267–73.
Casson EJ, Johnson CA. Temporal modulation perimetry in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. In: Mills RP, editor. Perimetry update 1992/93. New York: Kugler Publications; 1993. p. 443–50.
Matsumoto C, Takada S, Okuyama S, Arimura E, Hashimoto S, Shimomura Y. Automated flicker perimetry in glaucoma using Octopus 311: a comparative study with the Humphrey Matrix. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2006;84:866–72.
Swanson WH, Ueno T, Smith VC, Pokorny J. Temporal modulation sensitivity and pulse-detection thresholds for chromatic and luminance perturbations. J Opt Soc Am A. 1987;4:1992–2005.
Anderson AJ, Vingrys AJ. Interactions between flicker thresholds and luminance pedestals. Vision Res. 2000;40:2579–88.
Anderson AJ, Vingrys AJ. Effect of eccentricity on luminance-pedestal flicker thresholds. Vision Res. 2002;42:1149–56.
Anderson AJ, Vingrys AJ. Multiple processes mediate flicker sensitivity. Vision Res. 2001;41:2449–55.
Quaid PT, Flanagan JG. Defining the limits of flicker defined form: effect of stimulus size, eccentricity and number of random dots. Vision Res. 2005;45:1075–84.
Goren D, Flanagan JG. Is flicker-defined form (FDF) dependent on the contour? J Vis. 2008;22(8):15.1–15.11.
Frisen L. Acuity perimetry: estimation of neural channels. Int Ophthalmol. 1988;12:169–74.
Wall M, Lefante J, Conway M. Variability of high-pass resolution perimetry in normals and patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1991;32:3091–5.
Wall M, Conway MD, House PH, Allely R. Evaluation of sensitivity and specificity of spatial resolution and Humphrey automated perimetry in pseudotumor cerebri patients and normal subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1991;32:3306–12.
Sample PA, Ahn DS, Lee PC, Weinreb RN. High-pass resolution perimetry in eyes with ocular hypertension and primary open-angle glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1992;113:309–16.
Frisen L. High-pass resolution perimetry: a clinical review. Doc Ophthalmol. 1993;83:1–25.
Chauhan BC, LeBlanc RP, McCormick TA, Mohandas RN, Wijsman K. Correlation between the optic disc and results obtained with conventional, high-pass resolution and pattern discrimination perimetry in glaucoma. Can J Ophthalmol. 1993;28:312–6.
Chauhan BC, House PH, McCormick TA, LeBlanc RP. Comparison of conventional and high-pass resolution perimetry in a prospective study of patients with glaucoma and healthy controls. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:24–33.
Chauhan BC. The value of high-pass resolution perimetry in glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2000;11:85–9.
Ennis FA, Johnson CA. Are high-pass resolution perimetry thresholds sampling limited or optically limited? Optom Vis Sci. 2002;79:506–11.
Wall M, Chauhan B, Frisen L, House PH, Brito C. Visual field of high-pass resolution perimetry in normal subjects. J Glaucoma. 2004;13:15–21.
Frisen L. New, sensitive window on abnormal spatial vision: rarebit probing. Vision Res. 2002;42:1931–9.
Martin L, Wanger P. New perimetric techniques: a comparison between rarebit and frequency doubling technology perimetry in normal subjects and glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma. 2004;13:268–72.
Brusini P, Salvatet ML, Parisi L, Zeppieri M. Probing glaucoma visual damage by rarebit perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:180–4.
Salvatet ML, Zeppieri M, Parisi L, Brusini P. Rarebit perimetry in normal subjects: test-retest variability, learning effect, normative range, influence of optical defocus, and cataract extraction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:5320–31.
Yavas GF, Kusbeci T, Eser O, Ermis SS, Cosar M, Ozturk F. A new visual field test in empty sella syndrome: rarebit perimetry. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2008;18:628–32.
Bearse Jr MA, Sutter EE. Imaging localized retinal dysfunction with the multifocal electroretinogram. J Opt Soc Am A. 1996;13:634–40.
Chan HL, Brown B. Multifocal ERG changes in glaucoma. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1999;19:306–16.
Hood DC, Zhang X. Multifocal ERG and VEP responses and visual fields: comparing disease-related changes. Doc Ophthalmol. 2000;100:115–37.
Fortune B, Bearse MA, Cioffi GA, Johnson CA. Selective loss of an oscillatory component from temporal retinal multifocal ERG responses in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:2638–47.
Chan HH. Detection of glaucomatous damage using multifocal ERG. Clin Exp Optom. 2005;88:410–4.
Graham SL, Klistorner AL, Grigg JR, Billson FA. Objective VEP perimetry in glaucoma: asymmetry analysis to identify early deficits. J Glaucoma. 2000;9:10–9.
Klistorner A, Graham SL. Objective perimetry in glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:2283–99.
Hood DC, Greenstein VC. Multifocal VEP and ganglion cell damage: applications and limitations for the study of glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2003;22:201–51.
Graham SL, Klistorner AL, Goldberg I. Clinical application of objective perimetry using multifocal visual evoked potentials in glaucoma practice. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:729–39.
Grippo TM, Hood DC, Kandani FN, Greenstein VC, Liebmann JM, Ritch R. A comparison between multifocal and conventional VEP latency changes secondary to glaucomatous damage. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:5331–6.
Fortune B, Demirel S, Zhang X, Hood DC, Patterson E, Jamil A, Mansberger SL, Cioffi GA, Johnson CA. Comparing multifocal VEP and standard automated perimetry in high-risk ocular hypertensives and early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:1173–80.
Klistorner A, Graham SL, Martins A, Grigg JR, Arvind H, Kumar RS, James AC, Billson FA. Multifocal blue-on-yellow visual evoked potentials in early glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:1613–21.
Johnson CA, Keltner JL. Principals and techniques of the examination of the visual sensory system. Chapter 7. In: Miller N, Newman N, editors. Walsh and Hoyt’s textbook of neuro-ophthalmology. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkens; 1998. p. 153–235.
Frisen L. Clinical tests of vision. New York: Raven; 1990.
Lachenmayr BJ, Vivell PMO. Perimetry and its clinical correlations. New York: Thieme; 1993.
Spry PGD, Johnson CA. Identification of progressive glaucomatous visual field loss. Surv Ophthalmol. 2002;47:158–73.
Vesti E, Johnson CA, Chauhan BC. Comparison of different methods for detecting glaucomatous visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:3873–9.
Gardiner SK, Crabb DP. Frequency of testing for detecting visual field progression. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86:560–4.
Smith SD, Katz J, Quigley HA. Analysis of progressive change in automated visual fields in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1996;37:1419–28.
Åsman P, Heijl A. Glaucoma Hemifield Test: automated visual field evaluation. Arch Ophthalmol. 1992;110:812–9.
Heijl A, Lindgren G, Lindgren A, Olsson J, Åsman P, Myers S, Patella M. Extended empirical statistical package for evaluation of single and multiple fields in glaucoma. Statpak 2. In: Mills RP, Heijl A, editors. Perimetry update 1990/91. Amsterdam: Kugler and Ghedini; 1991. p. 303–15.
Mayama C, Araie M, Suzuki Y, Ishida K, Yamamoto T, Kitazawa Y, Shirakashi M, Abe H, Tsukamoto H, Mishima HK, Yoshimura K, Ohashi Y. Statistical evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of methods used to determine the progression of visual field defects in glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:2117–25.
Katz J, Congdon N, Friedman DS. Methodological variations in estimating apparent progressive visual field loss in clinical trials of glaucoma treatment. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:1137–42.
Nouri-Mahdavi K, Hoffman D, Ralli M, Caprioli J. Comparison of methods to predict visual field progression in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125:1176–81.
Boden C, Blumenthal EZ, Pascual J, McEwan G, Weinreb RN, Medeiros F, Sample PA. Patterns of glaucomatous visual field progression identified by three progression criteria. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138:1029–36.
AGIS Investigators. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 14. Distinguishing progression of glaucoma from visual field fluctuations. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:2109–16.
Schulzer M. Errors in the diagnosis of visual field progression in normal-tension glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1994;101:1589–94.
Heijl A, Bengtsson B, Chauhan BC, Lieberman MF, Cunliffe I, Hyman L, Leske MC. A comparison of visual field progression criteria of 3 major glaucoma trials in early manifest glaucoma trial patients. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:1557–65.
Broman AT, Quigley HA, West SK, Katz J, Munoz B, Bandeen-Roche K, Tielsch JM, Friedman DS, Crowston J, Taylor HR, Varma R, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, Heijl A, He M, Foster PJ. Estimating the rate of progressive visual field damage in those with open-angle glaucoma, from cross-sectional data. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:66–76.
Bengtsson B, Heijl A. A visual field index for calculation of glaucoma rate of progression. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145:343–53.
Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Spurr JO, Kass MA, Gordon MO, The Ocular Hypertension Study Group. Confirmation of visual field abnormalities in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS). Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:1187–94.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Johnson, C.A. (2014). Detecting Functional Changes in the Patient’s Vision: Visual Field Analysis. In: Samples, J., Schacknow, P. (eds) Clinical Glaucoma Care. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4172-4_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4172-4_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-4171-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-4172-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)