Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The distribution of normal values in automated perimetry

  • Clinical Investigations
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

From 354 visual fields of 137 normal subjects, various components of variance were calculated separately for each test location of the Octopus automated-perimetry program JO. The method of component analysis of variance was used. The following components were analyzed: interindividual variation (variation of visual-field measurements in different subjects), long-term fluctuation (variation of different visual-field measurements in the same subject), differences between the right and left eyes and fluctuation within one visual field test in one subject, i.e., short-term fluctuation. The results show increased variations at the center relative to the paracentral area and a slight increase with eccentricity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bebié H, Fankhauser F, Spahr J (1976) Static perimetry: accuracy and fluctuations. Acta Ophthalmol 54:339–348

    Google Scholar 

  2. Drance SM, Berry BA, Hughes RN (1966) Studies in the reproducibility of visual field areas in normals and glaucomatous subjects. Can J Ophthalmol 1:14–19

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Flammer J (1985) Fluctuations in the visual field. In: Drance SM, Anderson DR (eds) Automated perimetry in glaucoma: a practical guide. Grune and Stratton, Orlando, pp 161–173

    Google Scholar 

  4. Flammer J (1985) Normal values in computerized perimetry. In: Whalen WR, Spaeth GL (eds) Computerized visual fields. Slack, Thorofare, pp 159–164

    Google Scholar 

  5. Flammer J, Drance SM, Schulzer M (1983) The estimation and testing of the components of long-term fluctuation of the differential light threshold. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 35:383–389

    Google Scholar 

  6. Flammer J, Drance SM, Zulauf M (1983) Differential light threshold; short-and long-term fluctuation in patients with glaucoma, normal controls and patients with suspected glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 102:704–706

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gloor BP (1982) Die Computerperimetrie in der langfristigen Beurteilung des Glaukoms. In: Krieglstein GK, Leydhecker W (eds) Medikamentoese Glaukomtherapie. Bergmann, München, pp 59–72

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gloor BP, Voekt BA (1985) Long-term fluctuations versus actual field loss in glaucoma patients. Dev Ophthalmol 12:48–69

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gloor BP, Stuermer J, Voekt BA (1984) Was hat die automatisierte Perimetrie mit dem Octopus fuer neue Kenntnisse ueber glaukomatoese Gesichtsfeldveraenderungen gebracht? Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 184:249–253

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Haas A, Flammer J, Schneider U (1986) Influence of age on the visual fields of normal subjects. Am J Ophthalmol 10:199–203

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hays WL (1973) Statistics for the social sciences. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Plymouth, pp 551–576

    Google Scholar 

  12. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J (1987) Normal variability of static perimetrie threshold values across the central visual field. Arch Ophthalmol 105:1544–1549

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jenni A, Flammer J, Funkhouser A, Fankhauser F (1983) Special Octopus software for clinical investigation. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 35:351–356

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rabineau PA, Gloor BP, Tobler HJ (1985) Fluctuation in threshold and effect of fatigue in automated static perimetry (with the Octopus 201). Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 42:25–33

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rabineau PA, Gloor BP, Tobler HJ (1985) Schwellenwert-Fluktuationen und Ermuedungseffekt bei der automatisierten statischen Perimetrie mit dem Octopus 201. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 186: 502

    Google Scholar 

  16. Stuermer J (1985) What do glaucomatous visual fields really look like in fine-grid computerized profile perimetry? Dev Ophthalmol 12:1–47

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Stuermer J, Gloor BP, Tobler HJ (1984) Wie sehen Glaukomgesichtsfelder wirklich aus? Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 184:390–393

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Stuermer J, Gloor BP, Tobler HJ (1985) The glaucomatous visual field in detail as revealed by the Octopus F-programs. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 42:391–401

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universitäts-Augenklinik, Mittlere Strasse 91, Ch-4056, Basel, Switzerland

    C. Rutishauser, Josef Flammer & A. Haas

Authors
  1. C. Rutishauser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Josef Flammer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Haas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This study was supported by the Swiss Science Foundation (3'790-0.84)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rutishauser, C., Flammer, J. & Haas, A. The distribution of normal values in automated perimetry. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 227, 513–517 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02169442

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02169442

Keywords

Search

Navigation