Comparison of Size Modulation Standard Automated Perimetry and Conventional Standard Automated Perimetry with a 10-2 Test Program in Glaucoma Patients

References

• Gonzalez-Hernandez M, Pareja RA, Rodriguez M, Gonzalez de la Rosa M. Combined spatial resolution and contrast perimetry in normal subjects. In: Wall M, Mills RP, editors. Perimetry Update 2000/2001. Amsterdam: Kugler; 2001:109–114.
   Google Scholar
• Gonzalez-Hernandez M, Abreu A, Sanchez M, Gonzalez de la Rosa M. Combined spatial, contrast and temporal function perimetry in early glaucoma and ocular hypertension. In: Henson DB, Wall M, editors. Perimetry Update 2002/2003. Amsterdam: Kugler; 2004: 247.
   Google Scholar
• 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(6):514–522.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez de la Rosa M, Gonzalez-Hernandez M, Lozano Lopez V, Perera Sanz D. Topographical spatial summation in glaucoma. Eur J Ophthalmol 2007;17(4):538–544.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirasawa K, Shoji N, Kasahara M, Matsumura K, Shimizu K. Comparison of size modulation and conventional standard automated perimetry with the 24-2 test protocol in glaucoma patients. Sci Rep 2016;6:25563.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haag-Syreit. EyeSuiteTM instraction for use: EyeSuite version i8. Koeniz, Switzerland: Haag-Streit AG; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Bengtsson B, Heijl A. False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000;41(8):2201–2204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson DR, Patella VM. Automated Static Perimetry. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Budenz DL, Rhee P, Feuer WJ, McSoley J, Johnson CA, Anderson DR. Comparison of glaucomatous visual field defects using standard full threshold and Swedish interactive threshold algorithms. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120(9):1136–1141.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Aoki Y, Takahashi G, Kitahara K. Comparison of Swedish interactive threshold algorithm and full threshold algorithm for glaucomatous visual field loss. Eur J Ophthalmol 2007;17(2):196–202.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujimoto N. Comparison of a five-degree visual field between two programs of different testing field range. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2007;143(5):866–867.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujimoto N, Adachi-Usami E. Effect of test field size on the results of automated perimetry in normal subjects and patients with optic neuritis. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1991;69(3):367–370.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujimoto N, Adachi-Usami E. Effect of number of test points and size of test field in automated perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1992;70(3):323–326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujimoto N, Adachi-Usami E. Effect of number of test points in automated perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 1992;113(3):317–320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilpin LB, Stewart WC, Hunt HH, Broom CD. Threshold variability using different Goldmann stimulus sizes. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1990;68(6):674–676.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wall M, Kutzko KE, Chauhan BC. Variability in patients with glaucomatous visual field damage is reduced using size V stimuli. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997;38(2):426–435.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wall M, Doyle CK, Zamba KD, Artes P, Johnson CA. The repeatability of mean defect with size III and size V standard automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54(2):1345–1351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uyama K, Matsumoto C, Okuyama S, Otori T. Influence of the target size on the sensitivity of the central visual field in patients with early glaucoma. In: Mills RP, editor. Perimetry Update 1992/1993. Amsterdam: Kugler; 1993:381–385.
   Google Scholar
• Curcio CA, Allen KA. Topography of ganglion cells in human retina. J Comp Neurol 1990;300(1):5–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellmann C, Feely M, Crossland MD, Kabanarou SA, Rubin GS. Fixation stability using central and pericentral fixation targets in patients with age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2004;111(12):2265–2270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cesareo M, Manca D, Ciuffoletti E, De Giovanni V, Ricci F, Nucci C, et al. Evaluation of fixation stability using different targets with the MP1 microperimeter. Int Ophthalmol 2014;35:11–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi Y, Liu M, Wang X, Zhang C, Huang P. Fixation behavior in primary open angle glaucoma at early and moderate stage assessed by the MicroPerimeter MP-1. J Glaucoma 2013;22(2):169–173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunimatsu S, Suzuki Y, Shirato S, Araie M. Usefulness of gaze tracking during perimetry in glaucomatous eyes. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2000;44(2):190–191.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Inter-subject variability and normal limits of the SITA Standard, SITA Fast, and the Humphrey Full Threshold computerized perimetry strategies, SITA STATPAC. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1999;77(2):125–129.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, Rootzen H. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1997;75(4):368–375.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Weber J. [A new strategy for automated static perimetry]. Fortschr Ophthalmol 1990;87(1):37–40.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Langerhorst C, Carenini L, Bakker D, van den Berg T, de Bie-Raakman M. Comparison of SITA and Dynamic strategies with same examination grid. In: Wall M, Wild J, editors. Perimetry Update 1998/1999. Netherlands: Kugler; 1999:17–24.
   Google Scholar
• Chauhan BC, Tompkins JD, LeBlanc RP, McCormick TA. Characteristics of frequency-of-seeing curves in normal subjects, patients with suspected glaucoma, and patients with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993;34(13):3534–3540.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber J, Rau S. The properties of perimetric thresholds in normal and glaucomatous eyes. Ger J Ophthalmol 1992;1(2):79–85.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Weber J, Klimaschka T. Test time and efficiency of the dynamic strategy in glaucoma perimetry. Ger J Ophthalmol 1995;4(1):25–31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wall M, Woodward KR, Doyle CK, Artes PH. Repeatability of automated perimetry: a comparison between standard automated perimetry with stimulus size III and V, matrix, and motion perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009;50(2):974–979.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Artes PH, Iwase A, Ohno Y, Kitazawa Y, Chauhan BC. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast strategies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43(8):2654–2659.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wild JM, Pacey IE, O’Neill EC, Cunliffe IA. The SITA perimetric threshold algorithms in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999;40(9):1998–2009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bedell HE, Johnson CA. The perceived size of targets in the peripheral and central visual fields. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1984;4(2):123–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sloan LL. Area and luminance of test object as variables in examination of the visual field by projection perimetry. Vision Research 1961;1(1–2):121–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson ME. Invariant features of spatial summation with changing locus in the visual field. J Physiol 1970;207(3):611–622.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar