Comparative material on automated and semiautomated perimeters-1983

A history of perimetry and visual field testing

Perimetry and visual field testing have been used as clinical ophthalmic diagnostic tools for many years, and this manuscript will provide a brief historical overview of these procedures and the individuals who developed them. Today, we have many different forms of perimetry that are designed to evaluate different locations within the visual pathways and various mechanisms and subsets of mechanisms within the visual system. However, the most widely used method of performing perimetry and visual field testing has not substantially changed for more than 150 years, consisting of detecting a small target superimposed on a uniform background at different locations within the field of view. Although the basic test procedure has remained similar throughout the ages, there have been many advances in test administration, standardization, statistical evaluation, clinical analysis, interpretation, and prediction of outcome based on visual field findings.

Automated light- and dark-adapted perimetry for evaluating retinitis pigmentosa

Visual fields and dark-adapted thresholds, essential measurements of visual function in patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP), are usually performed manually. The authors have modified a computerized perimeter to perform automated light- and dark-adapted static perimetry across the visual field of RP patients. Results permit assessment of the level of visual disability in the light and dark and also help define subtypes of RP.

Early detection of glaucomatous damage. I. Psychophysical disturbances

In summary, automated perimetry and other psychophysical tests currently provide the most sensitive, reliable and reproducible means of clinically detecting early glaucomatous changes. Compared to optic disk and nerve fiber layer evaluation, such procedures provide a consistent, quantitative method of distinguishing between early abnormalities and normal variations.

A clinical comparison of visual field testing with a new automated perimeter, the Humphrey Field Analyzer, and the Goldmann perimeter

Automated threshold static perimetry with the Humphrey field analyzer and kinetic and suprathreshold static perimetry with the Goldmann perimeter were performed on 171 eyes: 69 with glaucoma or ocular hypertension, 69 with "neurologic" disorders, and 33 normal. The two fields were similar or differed only slightly in 78% of eyes overall and in 88% when both fields appeared reliable. In general, defects were slightly more extensive using the Humphrey than the Goldmann perimeter. In 21% of the eyes with glaucoma or ocular hypertension, defects were found with the Humphrey perimeter that were not present with the Goldmann perimeter. Patient fixation was more difficult to maintain on the Humphrey than Goldmann perimeter. Poor fixation accounted for 9% of the automated fields being inadequate whereas only 2% of the manual fields were inadequate. The results indicate that the Humphrey Field Analyzer is capable of reliably detecting and quantitating visual field defects.