Visual fields in glaucoma: a clinical overview

REFERENCES

• Walsh TJ. Visual fields examination and interpretation. 2nd ed. San Francisco : American Academy of Ophthalmology, 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Edgar DF, Crabb DP, Rudnicka AR, Lawrenson JG, Guttridge NM, O'brien CJ. Effects of dipivefrin and pilocarpine on pupil diameter, automated perimetry and logMAR acuity. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1999; 237: 117–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kudrna GR, Stanley MA, Remington LA. Pupillary dilation and its effects on automated perimetry results. J Am Optom Assoc 1995; 66: 675–680.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mendivil A. Influence of a dilated pupil on the visual field in glaucoma. J Glaucoma 1997; 6: 217–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith SD, Katz J, Quigley HA. Effect of cataract extraction on the results of automated perimetry in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1997; 115: 1515–1519.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gillies WE, Brooks AM. Effect of lens opacity on the glaucomatous field of vision. Aust NZ J Ophthalmol 1998; 26: 19–21.
   Google Scholar
• Heijl A, Bengtsson B. The effect of perimetric experience in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1996; 114: 19–22.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wood JM, Wild JM, Hussey MK, Crews SJ. Serial examination of the normal visual field using Octopus automated projection perimetry: evidence for a learning effect. Acta Ophthalmol 1987; 65: 326–333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez de la Rosa M, Pareja A. Influence of the ‘fatigue effect’ on the mean deviation measurement in perimetry. Eur J Ophthalmol 1997; 7: 29–34.
   Google Scholar
• Donahue SP. Lens holder artefact simulating glaucomatous defects in automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol 1998; 116: 1681–1683.
   Google Scholar
• Westcott MC, Mcnaught AI, Crabb DP, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. High spatial resolution automated perimetry in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1997; 81: 452–459.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang L, Drance SM, Douglas GR. The ability of Medmont M600 automated perimetry to detect threats to fixation. J Glaucoma 1997; 6: 259–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sample PA, Taylor JDN, Martinez G, Lusky M, Weinreb RN. Short‐wavelength color visual fields in glaucoma suspects at risk. Am J Ophthalmol 1993; 115: 225–233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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: 645–650.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Johnson CA, Brandt JD, Khong AM, Adams AJ. Short‐wavelength automated perimetry in low‐medium‐ and high‐risk ocular hypertensive eyes. Initial baseline results. Arch Ophthalmol 1995; 113: 70–76.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Heron G, Adams AJ, Husted R. Central visual fields for short wavelength sensitive pathways in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1988; 29: 64–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quigley HA, Dunkelberger GR, Green WR. Retinal ganglion cell atrophy correlated with automated perimetry in human eyes with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1989; 107: 453–464.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson RS, O'brien CJ. Psychophysical evidence for a selective loss of M ganglion cells in glaucoma. Vision Res 1997; 37: 1079–1083.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klistorner AI, Graham SL. Early magnocellular loss in glaucoma demonstrated using the pseudorandomly simulated flash visual evoked potential. J Glaucoma 1999; 8: 140–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wild JM, Moss ID, Whitaker D, O'neill D. The statistical interpretation of blue‐on‐yellow visual field loss. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1995; 36: 1398–1410.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demirel S, Johnson CA. Short wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP) in ophthalmic practice. J Am Optom Assoc 1996; 67: 451–456.
   Google Scholar
• Tyler CW. Specific deficits of flicker sensitivity in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1981; 20: 204–212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lachenmayr BJ, Rothbacher H, Gleissner M. Automated flicker perimetry versus quantitative static perimetry in early glaucoma. In: Heijl A ed. Perimetry Update 1988/89. Amsterdam : Kugler, Ghadini Pubs, 1989; 359–368.
   Google Scholar
• Lachenmayr B, Drance S, Douglas G, Mikelberg F. Light‐sense, flicker and resolution perimetry in glaucoma: a comparative study. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1991; 229: 246–251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin MW, O'brien CJ, Wishart PK. Flicker perimetry using a luminance threshold strategy at frequencies from 5–25Hz in glaucoma, ocular hypertension and normal controls. Curr Eye Res 1994; 13: 717–723.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rota‐bartelink A, Pitt A, Story I, Rait J. Automated flicker perimetry in early primary open‐angle glaucoma. Aust NZ J Ophthalmol 1996; 24: 25–27.
   Google Scholar
• Maddess T, Henry GH. Performance of nonlinear visual units in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Clin Vis Sci 1992; 7: 371–383.
   Google Scholar
• Maddess T, Glodberg I, Dobinson J, Wine S, James AC. Clinical trials of the frequency‐doubled illusion as an indicator of glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1995; 36: S335.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brusini P, Brusatto P. Frequency doubling perimetry in glaucoma; early diagnosis. Acta Ophthalmol 1998; 227: 23–24.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson CA, Samuels SJ. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency‐doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997; 38: 413–425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kondo Y, Yamamoto T, Sato Y, Matsubara M, Kitazawa Y. A frequency‐doubling perimetric study in normal‐tension glaucoma with hemifield defect. J Glaucoma 1998; 7: 261–265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sponsel WE, Arango S, Trigo Y, Mensah J. Clinical classification of glaucomatous visual field loss by frequency doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 1998; 125: 830–836.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar