Perception of very small visual stimuli in the fovea: normative data for the Rarebit Foveal Test

REFERENCES

• Frisén L, Quigley HA. Visual acuity in optic atrophy. A quantitative clinicopathological study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1984; 222: 71–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Algvere P, Seregard S. Age‐related maculopathy: pathogenetic features and new treatment modalities. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2002; 80: 136–143.
   Google Scholar
• Algvere P, Libert C, Lingärde G, Seregard S. Transpupillary thermotherapy of predominantly occult choriodal neovascularisation in age‐related macula degeneration with 12 month follow‐up. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2003; 81: 110–117.
   Google Scholar
• Frisén L. New, sensitive window on abnormal spatial vision: rarebit probing. Vision Res 2002; 42: 1931–1939.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malmer L, Martin L. Microdot test of foveal function. A comparison with visual acuity at high and low contrast. J Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2005; 25: 81–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mckendrick AM. Recent development in perimetry: test stimuli and procedures. Clin Exp Optom 2005; 88: 73–80.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Frisén L. Spatial vision in visually asymptomatic subjects at high risk for multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2003;74: 1145–1147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frisén L. Vigabatrin‐associated loss of vision: rarebit perimetry illuminates the dose‐damage relationship. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2004; 82: 54–58.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Martin L, Ley D, Marsal K, Hellstrom A. Visual function in young adults following intrauterine growth retardation. J Ped Ophthalmol Strab 2004; 41: 212–218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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: 268–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Parisi L, Zeppieri M. Probing glaucoma visual damage by Rarebit perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol 2005; 89: 180–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frisén L. Rarebit Perimetry, Handbook. 2004.
   Google Scholar
• International Council of Ophthalmology. Perimetric Standards and Perimetric Glossary. The Hague: Dr W Junk, 1979.
   Google Scholar
• Bearse MA, Freeman, RD. Binocular summation in orientation discrimination depends on stimulus contrast and duration. Vision Res 1994; 34: 10–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wakayama A, Matsumoto C, Ohmure K, Matsumoto F, Shimomura Y. Properties of receptive field on binocular fusion stimulation in the central visual field. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2002; 240: 743–747.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown S, Weih L, Mukesh N, Mccarty C, Taylor H. Assessment of adult stereopsis using the Lang I Stereotest: a pilot study. Binocul Vis Strabismus Q 2001; 16: 91–98.
   Google Scholar
• Cambell FW, Green DG. Monocular versus binocular visual acuity. Nature 1965; 205: 191–192.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison JD, Jay JL. Changes in visual function with normal ageing, cataract and intraocular lenses. Eye 1993; 7: 20–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson GR, Owsley C, Curcio CA. Photoreceptor degeneration and dysfunction in aging and age‐related maculopathy. Ageing Res Rev 2002; 1: 381–396.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison JD, Mcgrath C. Assessment of the optical contributions to the age‐related deterioration in vision. Q J Exp Physiol 1985; 70: 249–269.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sasaki H, Hockwin O, Kasuga T, Nagai K, Sakamoto Yasuo, Sasaki Kazuyuiki. An index for human lens transparency related to age and lens layer: Comparison between normal volunteers and diabetic patients with still clear lenses. Ophthalmic Res 1999; 31: 93–103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thibos LN, Hong X, Bradley A, Cheng X. Statistical variation of aberration structure and image quality in a normal population of healthy eyes. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 2002; 19: 2329–2348.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry RN. Quantitative relations among vernier, real depth and stereoscopic depth acuities. J Exp Psychol 1948; 38: 708–782.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lindblom B, Westheimer G. Binocular summation of hyperacuity tasks. J Opt Soc Am A 1989; 6: 585–589.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Banton T, Levi DM. Binocular summation in vernier acuity. J Opt Soc Am A 1991; 8: 673–680.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar