Peripheral Visual Fields in Children and Young Adults Using Semi-automated Kinetic Perimetry: Feasibility of Testing, Normative Data, and Repeatability

References

• Griffiths H. (2013). UK orthoptic survey to the British and Irish Orthoptic Society (BIOS) on the usage of semi-automated kinetic perimetry on the Octopus perimeter. [unpublished]
   Google Scholar
• Cummings MF, van Hof-van Duin J, Mayer DL, Hansen RM, Fulton AB. Visual fields of young children. Behav Brain Res 1988;29:7–16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wabbels BK, Wilscher S. Feasibility and outcome of automated static perimetry in children using continuous light increment perimetry (CLIP) and fast threshold strategy. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2005;83:664–669
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Aspinall PA. Peripheral vision in children. Ophthalmologica 1976;173:364–374
   Google Scholar
• Lakowski R, Aspinall PA. Static perimetry in young children. Vision Res 1969;9:303–312
   Google Scholar
• Liao F. Perimetry in young children. Jpn J Ophthalmol 1973;17:277–289
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson M, Quinn G, Dobson V, Breton M. Normative values for visual fields in 4- to 12-year-old children using kinetic perimetry. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 1991;28:151–153
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blumenthal EZ, Haddad A, Horani A, Anteby I. The reliability of frequency doubling perimetry in very young children. Ophthalmology 2004;111:435–439
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowering ER, Maurer D, Lewis TL, Brent HP. Constriction of the visual field of children after early visual deprivation. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 1997;34:347–356
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Codina CJ, Buckley D, Port M, Pascalis O. Deaf and hearing children, a comparison of peripheral vision development. Dev Sci 2010;14:725–737
   Google Scholar
• Morales J, Brown SM. The feasibility of short automated static perimetry in children. Ophthalmology 2001;108:157–162
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldmann H. Ein selbstregistrierendes Projektionskugelperimeter. Ophthalmologica 1945;109:71–79
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vonthein R, Rauscher S, Paetzold J, Nowomiejska K, Krapp E, Hermann A, Sadowski B, Chaumette C, Wild JM, Schiefer U. The normal age-corrected and reaction time-corrected isopter derived by semi-automated kinetic perimetry. Ophthalmology 2007;114:1065–1072
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quinn GE, Fea AM, Minguini N. Visual fields in 4 to 10 year old children using the Goldmann and double-arc perimeters. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 1991;28:314–319
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilscher S, Wabbels B, Lorenz B. Feasibility and outcome of automated kinetic perimetry in children. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2010;248:1493–1500
   Google Scholar
• Rhodes MR. Prospective pilot study looking at the size and variation of the blind spot scotoma in adults measured on the Octopus 900 Field Analyser. Ophthalmol Res 2013;1:38–50
   Google Scholar
• Dolderer J, Vonthein R, Johnson CA, Scheifer 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;84:338–344
   Google Scholar
• Nevalainen J, Paetzold J, Krapp E, Vonthein R, Johnson CA, Schiefer U. The use of semi-automated kinetic perimetry (SKP) to monitor advanced glaucomatous visual field loss. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2008;246:1331–1339
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nowomiejska K, Vonthein R, Paetzold J, Zagorski Z, Kardon R, Schiefer U. Comparison between semiautomated kinetic perimetry and conventional Goldmann manual kinetic perimetry in advanced visual field loss. Ophthalmology 2005;112:1343–1354
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsson J, Asman P, Heijl A. A perimetric learner’s index. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1997;75:665–668
   Google Scholar
• Artes PH, McLoed D, Henson DB. Response time as a discriminator between true- and false-positive responses in supra-threshold perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43:129–132
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker ST, Vonthein R, Volpe NJ, Schiefer U. Factors influencing reaction time during automated kinetic perimetry on the Tübingen computer campimeter. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:2633–2638
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nowomiejska K, Vonthein R, Paetzold J, Zagorski Z, Kardon R, Schiefer U. Reaction time during semi-automated kinetic perimetry (SKP) in patients with advanced field loss. Acta Ophthalmol 2010;88:65–69
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiselev S, Espy KA, Sheffield T. Age-related differences in reaction time task performance in young children. J Exp Child Psychol 2009;102:150–166
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venker CC, Goodwin JL, Roe DJ, Kaemingk KL, Mulvaney S, Quan SF. Normative psychomotor vigilance task performance in children ages 6 to 11—the Tucson Children’s Assessment of Sleep Apnea Study. Sleep Breath 2007;11:217–224
   Google Scholar
• Brown SM, Bradley JC, Monhart MJ, Baker DK. Normal values for Octopus tendency orientated perimetry in children 7 through 13 years old. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2005;243:886–893
   Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–310
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Safran, AB, Laffi GL, Bullinger A, Viviani P, de Weisse C, Désangles D, Tschopp C, Mermoud C. Feasibility of automated visual field examination in children between 5 and 8 years of age. Br J Ophthalmol 1996;80:515–518
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whiteside JA. Peripheral vision in children and adults. Child Dev 1976;47:290–293
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose SA, Feldman JF, Jankowski JJ, Caro DM. A longitudinal study of visual expectation and reaction time in the first year of life. Child Dev 2002;73:47–61
   Google Scholar
• Der G, Deary IJ. Age and sex differences in reaction time in adulthood: results from the United Kingdom health and lifestyle survey. Psychol Aging 2006;21:62–73
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google 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
• Horani A, Frenkel S, Yahalom C, Farber MD, Ticho U, Blumenthal EZ. The learning effect in visual field testing of healthy subjects using frequency doubling technology. J Glaucoma 2002;11:511–516
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar