The value of visual field testing in the era of advanced imaging: clinical and psychophysical perspectives
Jack Phu, Sieu K Khuu, Michael Yapp, Nagi Assaad, Michael P Hennessy, Michael Kalloniatis, Jack Phu, Sieu K Khuu, Michael Yapp, Nagi Assaad, Michael P Hennessy, Michael Kalloniatis
Abstract
White-on-white standard automated perimetry (SAP) is widely used in clinical and research settings for assessment of contrast sensitivity using incremental light stimuli across the visual field. It is one of the main functional measures of the effect of disease upon the visual system. SAP has evolved over the last 40 years to become an indispensable tool for comprehensive assessment of visual function. In modern clinical practice, a range of objective measurements of ocular structure, such as optical coherence tomography, have also become invaluable additions to the arsenal of the ophthalmic examination. Although structure-function correlation is a highly desirable determinant of an unambiguous clinical picture for a patient, in practice, clinicians are often faced with discordance of structural and functional results, which presents them with a challenge. The construction principles behind the development of SAP are used to discuss the interpretation of visual fields, as well as the problem of structure-function discordance. Through illustrative clinical examples, we provide useful insights to assist clinicians in combining a range of clinical results obtained from SAP and from advanced imaging techniques into a coherent picture that can help direct clinical management.
Keywords: Bloch's law; Ricco's law; glaucoma; optical coherence tomography; perimetry; psychophysics; spatial summation; structure-function; temporal summation; tilted disc syndrome.
© 2017 The Authors. Clinical and Experimental Optometry published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Optometry Australia.
Figures
References
- Traquair HM. An Introduction to Clinical Perimetry. London: Henry Kimpton, 1927.
- Traquair HM. Clinical detection of early changes in the visual field. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1939; 37: 158–179.
- Schiefer U, Patzold J, Dannheim F. [Conventional techniques of visual field examination Part 2: confrontation visual field testing ‐ kinetic perimetry]. Ophthalmologe 2005; 102: 821–827.
- Spector RH. Visual fields In: Walker HK, Wall WD, Hurst JW. eds. Clinical Methods: The History, Physical and Laboratory Examinations, 3rd edn. Boston: Butterworths, 1990.
- Khuu SK, Kalloniatis M. Standard automated perimetry: determining spatial summation and its effect on contrast sensitivity across the visual field. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015; 56: 3565–3576.
- Sloan LL. Area and luminance of test object as variables in examination of the visual field by projection perimetry. Vision Res 1961; 1: 121–138.
- Phu J, Al‐Saleem N, Kalloniatis M et al. Physiologic statokinetic dissociation is eliminated by equating static and kinetic perimetry testing procedures. J Vis 2016; 16: 5.
- Heijl A, Patella VM. Essential Perimetry ‐ The Field Analyzer Primer. Dublin, California: Carl Zeiss Meditec, 2002.
- Landers J, Sharma A, Goldberg I et al. Comparison of visual field sensitivities between the Medmont automated perimeter and the Humphrey field analyser. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2010; 38: 273–276.
- Rowe F. Visual Fields via the Visual Pathway. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 2016.
- Johnson CA, Wall M, Thompson HS. A history of perimetry and visual field testing. Optom Vis Sci 2011; 88: E8‐E15.
- Anderson AJ, Shuey NH, Wall M. Rapid confrontation screening for peripheral visual field defects and extinction. Clin Exp Optom 2009; 92: 45–48.
- Classe JG. Legal aspects of visual field assessment. J Am Optom Assoc 1989; 60: 936–938.
- Gutteridge IF. Should visual field examination be a routine part of ophthalmic practice? Doc Ophthalmol 1985; 59: 323–339.
- Jampel HD, Singh K, Lin SC et al. Assessment of visual function in glaucoma: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2011; 118: 986–1002.
- NHMRC . Guidelines for the Screening, Prognosis, Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of Glaucoma. Canberra, Australia, 2010.
- Turpin A, McKendrick AM, Johnson CA et al. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, ZEST and SITA‐like strategies, as determined by computer simulation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44: 4787–4795.
- Malik R, Baker H, Russell RA et al. A survey of attitudes of glaucoma subspecialists in England and Wales to visual field test intervals in relation to NICE guidelines. BMJ Open 2013; 3: e002067.
- Fung SS, Lemer C, Russell RA et al. Are practical recommendations practiced? A national multi‐centre cross‐sectional study on frequency of visual field testing in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2013; 97: 843–847.
- Kerrigan‐Baumrind LA, Quigley HA, Pease ME et al. Number of ganglion cells in glaucoma eyes compared with threshold visual field tests in the same persons. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 41: 741–748.
- 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.
- Jeong JH, Park KH, Jeoung JW et al. Preperimetric normal tension glaucoma study: long‐term clinical course and effect of therapeutic lowering of intraocular pressure. Acta Ophthalmol 2014; 92: e185–193.
- Kim KE, Jeoung JW, Kim DM et al. Long‐term follow‐up in preperimetric open‐angle glaucoma: progression rates and associated factors. Am J Ophthamol 2015; 159: 160–168.
- Prum BE, Jr. , Rosenberg LF, Gedde SJ et al. Primary open‐angle glaucoma preferred practice pattern® guidelines. Ophthalmology 2016; 123: P41–P111.
- Malik R, Swanson WH, Garway‐Heath DF. ‘Structure‐function relationship’ in glaucoma: past thinking and current concepts. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2012; 40: 369–380.
- Elam AR, Blachley TS, Stein JD. Geographic variation in the use of diagnostic testing of patients with newly diagnosed open‐angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2016; 123: 522–531.
- Medeiros FA, Zangwill L, Bowd C et al. The structure and function relationship in glaucoma: implications for detection of progression and measurement of rates of change. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012; 53: 6939–6946.
- Jamous KF, Jalbert I, Kalloniatis M et al. Australian optometric and ophthalmologic referral pathways for people with age‐related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy and glaucoma. Clin Exp Optom 2014; 97: 248–255.
- Jamous KF, Kalloniatis M, Hennessy MP et al. Clinical model assisting with the collaborative care of glaucoma patients and suspects. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2015; 43: 308–319.
- Yoshioka N, Wong E, Kalloniatis M et al. Influence of education and diagnostic modes on glaucoma assessment by optometrists. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2015; 35: 682–698.
- Pye D, Herse P, Nguyen H et al. Conversion factor for comparison of data from Humphrey and Medmont automated perimeters. Clin Exp Optom 1999; 82: 11–14.
- Kalloniatis M, Khuu SK. Equating spatial summation in visual field testing reveals greater loss in optic nerve disease. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2016; 36: 439–452.
- Sakata LM, DeLeon‐Ortega J, Girkin CA. Selective perimetry in glaucoma diagnosis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2007; 18: 115–121.
- Sample PA, Bosworth CF, Blumenthal EZ et al. Visual function‐specific perimetry for indirect comparison of different ganglion cell populations in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 41: 1783–1790.
- Sample PA, Madrid ME, Weinreb RN. Evidence for a variety of functional defects in glaucoma‐suspect eyes. J Glaucoma 1994; 3 (Suppl 1): S5‐S18.
- Sample PA, Medeiros FA, Racette L et al. Identifying glaucomatous vision loss with visual‐function‐specific perimetry in the diagnostic innovations in glaucoma study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47: 3381–3389.
- Glovinsky Y, Quigley HA, Dunkelberger GR. Retinal ganglion cell loss is size dependent in experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1991; 32: 484–491.
- Quigley HA, Dunkelberger GR, Green WR. Chronic human glaucoma causing selectively greater loss of large optic nerve fibers. Ophthalmology 1988; 95: 357–363.
- Quigley HA, Sanchez RM, Dunkelberger GR et al. Chronic glaucoma selectively damages large optic nerve fibers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1987; 28: 913–920.
- Morgan JE. Selective cell death in glaucoma: does it really occur? Br J Ophthalmol 1994; 78: 875–880.
- Morgan JE. Retinal ganglion cell shrinkage in glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2002; 11: 365–370.
- Morgan JE, Uchida H, Caprioli J. Retinal ganglion cell death in experimental glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2000; 84: 303–310.
- Yücel YH, Zhang Q, Gupta N et al. Loss of neurons in magnocellular and parvocellular layers of the lateral geniculate nucleus in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2000; 118: 378–384.
- Yücel YH, Zhang Q, Weinreb RN et al. Effects of retinal ganglion cell loss on magno‐, parvo‐, koniocellular pathways in the lateral geniculate nucleus and visual cortex in glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res 2003; 22: 465–481.
- Kanamori A, Nagai‐Kusuhara A, Escano MF et al. Comparison of confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy, scanning laser polarimetry and optical coherence tomography to discriminate ocular hypertension and glaucoma at an early stage. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2006; 244: 58–68.
- Lisboa R, Leite MT, Zangwill LM et al. Diagnosing preperimetric glaucoma with spectral domain optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology 2012; 119: 2261–2269.
- Mardin CY, Horn FK, Jonas JB et al. Preperimetric glaucoma diagnosis by confocal scanning laser tomography of the optic disc. Br J Ophthalmol 1999; 83: 299–304.
- Adhikari P, Zele AJ, Thomas R et al. Quadrant field pupillometry detects melanopsin dysfunction in glaucoma suspects and early glaucoma. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 33373.
- Wen W, Zhang P, Liu T et al. A novel motion‐on‐color paradigm for isolating magnocellular pathway function in preperimetric glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015; 56: 4439–4446.
- Asaoka R, Iwase A, Hirasawa K et al. Identifying ‘preperimetric’ glaucoma in standard automated perimetry visual fields. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2014; 55: 7814–7820.
- Asaoka R, Murata H, Iwase A et al. Detecting preperimetric glaucoma with standard automated perimetry using a deep learning classifier. Ophthalmology 2016; 123: 1974–1980.
- Casson EJ, Johnson CA, Shapiro LR. Longitudinal comparison of temporal‐modulation perimetry with white‐on‐white and blue‐on‐yellow perimetry in ocular hypertension and early glaucoma. J Opt Soc Am A 1993; 10: 1792–1806.
- McKendrick AM. Recent developments in perimetry: test stimuli and procedures. Clin Exp Optom 2005; 88: 73–80.
- Luithardt AF, Meisner C, Monhart M et al. Validation of a new static perimetric thresholding strategy (GATE). Br J Ophthalmol 2015; 99: 11–15.
- Denniss J, McKendrick AM, Turpin A. Towards patient‐tailored perimetry: automated perimetry can be improved by seeding procedures with patient‐specific structural information. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2013; 2: 3.
- Rubinstein NJ, McKendrick AM, Turpin A. Incorporating spatial models in visual field test procedures. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2016; 5: 7.
- Rao HL, Yadav RK, Begum VU et al. Role of visual field reliability indices in ruling out glaucoma. JAMA Ophthalmol 2015; 133: 40–44.
- Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open‐angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120: 701–713.
- Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Spurr JO et al. Baseline visual field profile of optic neuritis. The experience of the optic neuritis treatment trial. Optic Neuritis Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol 1993; 111: 231–234.
- Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M et al. Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2003; 121: 48–56.
- Garway‐Heath DF, Crabb DP, Bunce C et al. Latanoprost for open‐angle glaucoma (UKGTS): a randomised, multicentre, placebo‐controlled trial. Lancet 2015; 385: 1295–1304.
- Miglior S, Zeyen T, Pfeiffer N et al. Results of the European Glaucoma Prevention Study. Ophthalmology 2005; 112: 366–375.
- Krupin T, Liebmann JM, Greenfield DS et al. The Low‐pressure Glaucoma Treatment Study (LoGTS) study design and baseline characteristics of enrolled patients. Ophthalmology 2005; 112: 376–385.
- Birt CM, Shin DH, Samudrala V et al. Analysis of reliability indices from Humphrey visual field tests in an urban glaucoma population. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 1126–1130.
- Henson DB, Emuh T. Monitoring vigilance during perimetry by using pupillography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010; 51: 3540–3543.
- Bengtsson B, Heijl A. False‐negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 41: 2201–2204.
- Katz J, Sommer A. Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests. Arch Ophthalmol 1988; 106: 1252–1254.
- Katz J, Sommer A. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss. The effect of patient reliability. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 1032–1037.
- Katz J, Sommer A, Witt K. Reliability of visual field results over repeated testing. Ophthalmology 1991; 98: 70–75.
- Gardiner SK, Swanson WH, Demirel S. The effect of limiting the range of perimetric sensitivities on pointwise assessment of visual field progression in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2016; 57: 288–294.
- Gardiner SK, Swanson WH, Goren D et al. Assessment of the reliability of standard automated perimetry in regions of glaucomatous damage. Ophthalmology 2014; 121: 1359–1369.
- Fankhauser F. Re: The influence of stimulus size on perimetric detection of small scotomata by Toke Bek and Henrik Lund‐Andersen. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1990; 228: 383–384.
- Bek T, Lund‐Andersen H. The influence of stimulus size on perimetric detection of small scotomata. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1989; 227: 531–534.
- Sanabria O, Feuer WJ, Anderson DR. Pseudo‐loss of fixation in automated perimetry. Ophthalmology 1991; 98: 76–78.
- Zele AJ, Cao D. Vision under mesopic and scotopic illumination. Front Psychol 2014; 5: 1594.
- Herse P. An application of threshold‐versus‐intensity functions in automated static perimetry. Vision Res 2005; 45: 461–468.
- Kalloniatis M, Harwerth RS, Smith EL 3rd et al. Colour vision anomalies following experimental glaucoma in monkeys. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1993; 13: 56–67.
- Owsley C, McGwin G Jr, Clark ME et al. Delayed rod‐mediated dark adaptation is a functional biomarker for incident early age‐related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2016; 123: 344–351.
- Barlow HB. Increment thresholds at low intensities considered as signal/noise discriminations. J Physiol 1957; 136: 469–488.
- Davson H. Physiology of the Eye, 5th Ed. London: Macmillan Academic and Professional Ltd, 1990.
- Kalloniatis M, Harwerth RS. Spectral sensitivity and adaptation characteristics of cone mechanisms under white‐light adaptation. J Opt Soc Am A 1990; 7: 1912–1928.
- Kalloniatis M, Harwerth RS. Effects of chromatic adaptation on opponent interactions in monkey increment‐threshold spectral‐sensitivity functions. J Opt Soc Am A 1991; 8: 1818–1831.
- Boynton RM, Whitten DN. Visual adaptation in monkey cones: recordings of late receptor potentials. Science 1970; 170: 1423–1426.
- Whittle P, Challands PD. The effect of background luminance on the brightness of flashes. Vision Res 1969; 9: 1095–1110.
- Hecht S. The visual discrimination of intensity and the Weber‐Fechner law. J Gen Physiol 1924; 7: 235–267.
- Rose A. The sensitivity performance of the human eye on an absolute scale. J Opt Soc Am 1948; 38: 196–208.
- Brown LG, Rudd ME. Evidence for a noise gain control mechanism in human vision. Vision Res 1998; 38: 1925–1933.
- Heuer DK, Anderson DR, Feuer WJ et al. The influence of decreased retinal illumination on automated perimetric threshold measurements. Am J Ophthamol 1989; 108: 643–650.
- Owen WG. Spatio‐temporal integration in the human peripheral retina. Vision Res 1972; 12: 1011–1026.
- Graham CH, Margaria R. Area and the intensity‐time relation in the peripheral retina. Am J Physiol 1935; 113: 299–305.
- Ricco A. Relazione fra il minimo angolo visuale e l'intensita luminosa. [Relationship between the minimum visual angle and intensity of light]. Annali di Ottalmologia 1877; 6: 373–479.
- Baumgardt E. Threshold quantal problems In: Jameson D, Hurvich LM. eds. Visual Psychophysics. New York: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1972. p 29–55.
- Khuu SK, Kalloniatis M. Spatial summation across the central visual field: implications for visual field testing. J Vis 2015; 15: 15.1.6.
- Mulholland PJ, Redmond T, Garway‐Heath DF et al. Spatiotemporal Summation of Perimetric Stimuli in Early Glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015; 56: 6473–6482.
- Sloan LL, Brown DJ. Area and luminance of test object as variables in projection perimetry ‐ clinical studies of photometric dysharmony. Vision Res 1962; 2: 527–541.
- Wilson ME. Spatial and temporal summation in impaired regions of the visual field. J Physiol 1967; 189: 189–208.
- Wilson ME. Invariant features of spatial summation with changing locus in the visual field. J Physiol 1970; 207: 611–622.
- Mulholland PJ, Redmond T, Garway‐Heath DF et al. The effect of age on the temporal summation of achromatic perimetric stimuli. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015; 56: 6467–6472.
- Fankhauser F. Problems related to the design of automatic perimeters. Doc Ophthalmol 1979; 47: 89–139.
- Choplin NT, Sherwood MB, Spaeth GL. The effect of stimulus size on the measured threshold values in automated perimetry. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 371–374.
- Wall M, Kutzko KE, Chauhan BC. Variability in patients with glaucomatous visual field damage is reduced using size V stimuli. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997; 38: 426–435.
- Wilensky JT, Mermelstein JR, Siegel HG. The use of different‐sized stimuli in automated perimetry. Am J Ophthamol 1986; 101: 710–713.
- Gilpin LB, Stewart WC, Hunt HH et al. Threshold variability using different Goldmann stimulus sizes. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1990; 68: 674–676.
- Fankhauser F, Enoch JM. The effects of blur upon perimetric thresholds. A method for determining a quantitative estimate of retinal contour. Arch Ophthalmol 1962; 68: 240–251.
- ISO . International Standard: Ophthalmic instruments ‐ perimeters. ISO 12866:1999. Geneva, Switzerland, 1999.
- ISO . International Standard: Ophthalmic instruments ‐ perimeters. ISO 12866:1999/Amd.1:2008(E). Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
- Redmond T, Garway‐Heath DF, Zlatkova MB et al. Sensitivity loss in early glaucoma can be mapped to an enlargement of the area of complete spatial summation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010; 51: 6540–6548.
- Swanson WH. Stimulus size for perimetry in patients with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013; 54: 3984.
- Heijl A. The Humphrey Field Analyzer, construction and concepts In: Heijl AG, Samander C. eds. Sixth International Visual Field Symposium: Springer Netherlands, 1985. pp 77–84.
- Wall M, Woodward KR, Doyle CK et al. The effective dynamic ranges of standard automated perimetry sizes III and V and motion and matrix perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol 2010; 128: 570–576.
- Caprioli J, Spaeth GL. Static threshold examination of the peripheral nasal visual field in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1985; 103: 1150–1154.
- Werner EB, Drance SM. Early visual field disturbances in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1977; 95: 1173–1175.
- Marmor MF, Kellner U, Lai TY et al. Revised recommendations on screening for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine retinopathy. Ophthalmology 2011; 118: 415–422.
- Choi AY, Nivison‐Smith L, Khuu SK et al. Determining spatial summation and its effect on contrast sensitivity across the central 20 degrees of visual field. PLoS ONE 2016; 11: e0158263.
- Asaoka R. Mapping glaucoma patients’ 30–2 and 10–2 visual fields reveals clusters of test points damaged in the 10–2 grid that are not sampled in the sparse 30–2 grid. PLoS ONE 2014; 9: e98525.
- Hood DC, Raza AS, de Moraes CG et al. Initial arcuate defects within the central 10 degrees in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52: 940–946.
- Park SC, Kung Y, Su D et al. Parafoveal scotoma progression in glaucoma: humphrey 10–2 versus 24–2 visual field analysis. Ophthalmology 2013; 120: 1546–1550.
- Heijl A. Perimetric point density and detection of glaucomatous visual field loss. Acta Ophthalmol 1993; 71: 445–450.
- Henson DB, Chauhan BC, Hobley A. Screening for glaucomatous visual field defects: the relationship between sensitivity, specificity and the number of test locations. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1988; 8: 123–127.
- King D, Drance SM, Douglas GR et al. The detection of paracentral scotomas with varying grids in computed perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol 1986; 104: 524–525.
- Ahrlich KG, De Moraes CG, Teng CC et al. Visual field progression differences between normal‐tension and exfoliative high‐tension glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010; 51: 1458–1463.
- Cho HK, Lee J, Lee M et al. Initial central scotomas vs peripheral scotomas in normal‐tension glaucoma: clinical characteristics and progression rates. Eye 2014; 28: 303–311.
- Ehrlich AC, Raza AS, Ritch R et al. Modifying the conventional visual field test pattern to improve the detection of early glaucomatous defects in the central 10 degrees. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2014; 3: 6.
- Hood DC, Nguyen M, Ehrlich AC et al. A test of a model of glaucomatous damage of the macula with high‐density perimetry: implications for the locations of visual field test points. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2014; 3: 5.
- Aoyama Y, Murata H, Tahara M et al. A method to measure visual field sensitivity at the edges of glaucomatous scotomata. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2014; 55: 2584–2591.
- Chong LX, McKendrick AM, Ganeshrao SB et al. Customized, automated stimulus location choice for assessment of visual field defects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2014; 55: 3265–3274.
- Chong LX, Turpin A, McKendrick AM. Targeted spatial sampling using GOANNA improves detection of visual field progression. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2015; 35: 155–169.
- Denniss J, McKendrick AM, Turpin A. An anatomically customizable computational model relating the visual field to the optic nerve head in individual eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012; 53: 6981–6990.
- Madrid‐Costa D, Ruiz‐Alcocer J, García‐Lázaro S et al. Effect of multizone refractive multifocal contact lenses on standard automated perimetry. Eye Contact Lens 2012; 38: 278–271.
- Ogura S, Yasukawa T, Kato A et al. Wide‐field fundus autofluorescence imaging to evaluate retinal function in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Am J Ophthamol 2014; 158: 1093–1098.
- Liu L, Jia Y, Takusagawa HL et al. Optical coherence tomography angiography of the peripapillary retina in glaucoma. JAMA Ophthalmol 2015; 133: 1045–1052.
- Oishi A, Ogino K, Makiyama Y et al. Wide‐field fundus autofluorescence imaging of retinitis pigmentosa. Ophthalmology 2013; 120: 1827–1834.
- Mills RP, Budenz DL, Lee PP et al. Categorizing the stage of glaucoma from pre‐diagnosis to end‐stage disease. Am J Ophthamol 2006; 141: 24–30.
- Artes PH, Nicolela MT, LeBlanc RP et al. Visual field progression in glaucoma: total versus pattern deviation analyses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46: 4600–4606.
- Khoury JM, Donahue SP, Lavin PJ et al. Comparison of 24–2 and 30–2 perimetry in glaucomatous and nonglaucomatous optic neuropathies. J Neuroophthalmol 1999; 19: 100–108.
- Fingeret M. Clinical alternative for reducing the time needed to perform automated threshold perimetry. J Am Opt Assoc 1995; 66: 699–705.
- Budenz DL, Rhee P, Feuer WJ et al. Sensitivity and specificity of the Swedish interactive threshold algorithm for glaucomatous visual field defects. Ophthalmology 2002; 109: 1052–1058.
- Kim JM, Kyung H, Shim SH et al. Location of initial visual field defects in glaucoma and their modes of deterioration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015; 56: 7956–7962.
- Drance SM. The glaucomatous visual field. Br J Ophthalmol 1972; 56: 186–200.
- Garway‐Heath DF, Poinoosawmy D, Fitzke FW et al. Mapping the visual field to the optic disc in normal tension glaucoma eyes. Ophthalmology 2000; 107: 1809–1815.
- Leite MT, Zangwill LM, Weinreb RN et al. Structure‐function relationships using the Cirrus spectral domain optical coherence tomograph and standard automated perimetry. J Glaucoma 2012; 21: 49–54.
- FORUM Instructions for Use Software version 3.2. Germany: Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, 2013.
- Katz BJ, Pomeranz HD. Visual field defects and retinal nerve fiber layer defects in eyes with buried optic nerve drusen. Am J Ophthamol 2006; 141: 248–253.
- Purvin V, Sundaram S, Kawasaki A. Neuroretinitis: review of the literature and new observations. J Neuroophthalmol 2011; 31: 58–68.
- Chiang J, Wong E, Whatham A et al. The usefulness of multimodal imaging for differentiating pseudopapilloedema and true swelling of the optic nerve head: a review and case series. Clin Exp Optom 2015; 98: 12–24.
- Zangerl B, Whatham A, Kim J et al. Reconciling visual field defects and retinal nerve fibre layer asymmetric patterns in retrograde degeneration: an extended case series. Clin Exp Optom 2017; 100: 214–226.
- Menjot de Champfleur N, Menjot de Champfleur S, Galanaud D et al. Imaging of the optic chiasm and retrochiasmal visual pathways. Diagn Interv Imaging 2013; 94: 957–971.
- Menjot de Champfleur N, Leboucq N, Menjot de Champfleur S et al. Imaging of the pre‐chiasmatic optic nerve. Diagn Interv Imaging 2013; 94: 973–984.
- Tantiwongkosi B, Salamon N. Imaging of retrochiasmal and higher cortical visual disorders. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2015; 25: 411–424.
- Herse P. Pituitary macroadenoma: a case report and review. Clin Exp Optom 2014; 97: 125–132.
- Vuori ML, Mantyjarvi M. Tilted disc syndrome may mimic false visual field deterioration. Acta Ophthalmol 2008; 86: 622–625.
- Kupfer C, Chumbley L, Downer JC. Quantitative histology of optic nerve, optic tract and lateral geniculate nucleus of man. J Anat 1967; 101: 393–401.
- Kardon R, Kawasaki A, Miller NR. Origin of the relative afferent pupillary defect in optic tract lesions. Ophthalmology 2006; 113: 1345–1353.
- Kedar S, Zhang X, Lynn MJ et al. Congruency in homonymous hemianopia. Am J Ophthamol 2007; 143: 772–780.
- Zhang X, Kedar S, Lynn MJ et al. Homonymous hemianopias: clinical‐anatomic correlations in 904 cases. Neurology 2006; 66: 906–910.
- Jindahra P, Petrie A, Plant GT. The time course of retrograde trans‐synaptic degeneration following occipital lobe damage in humans. Brain 2012; 135: 534–541.
- Artes PH, Iwase A, Ohno Y et al. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard and SITA Fast strategies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002; 43: 2654–2659.
- Spenceley SE, Henson DB. Visual field test simulation and error in threshold estimation. Br J Ophthalmol 1996; 80: 304–308.
- Gillespie BW, Musch DC, Guire KE et al. The collaborative initial glaucoma treatment study: baseline visual field and test‐retest variability. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44: 2613–2620.
- Heijl A, Lindgren A, Lindgren G. Test‐retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields. Am J Ophthamol 1989; 108: 130–135.
- Heijl A, Bengtsson B, Chauhan BC et al. A comparison of visual field progression criteria of 3 major glaucoma trials in early manifest glaucoma trial patients. Ophthalmology 2008; 115: 1557–1565.
- Chauhan BC, Garway‐Heath DF, Goni FJ et al. Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2008; 92: 569–573.
- Nayak BK, Maskati QB, Parikh R. The unique problem of glaucoma: under‐diagnosis and over‐treatment. Indian J Ophthamol 2011; 59 (Suppl): S1‐S2.
- Ohba N, Nakao K, Isashiki Y et al. The 100 most frequently cited articles in ophthalmology journals. Arch Ophthalmol 2007; 125: 952–960.
- Harwerth RS, Carter‐Dawson L, Shen F et al. Ganglion cell losses underlying visual field defects from experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999; 40: 2242–2250.
- Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Cello KE et al. Baseline visual field characteristics in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Ophthalmology 2002; 109: 432–437.
- Miglior S, Zeyen T, Pfeiffer N et al. The European glaucoma prevention study design and baseline description of the participants. Ophthalmology 2002; 109: 1612–1621.
- Leske MC, Heijl A, Hyman L et al. Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial: design and baseline data. Ophthalmology 1999; 106: 2144–2153.
- Bowd C, Zangwill LM, Berry CC et al. Detecting early glaucoma by assessment of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness and visual function. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001; 42: 1993–2003.
- Harwerth RS, Quigley HA. Visual field defects and retinal ganglion cell losses in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2006; 124: 853–859.
- Spry PG, Johnson CA, Mansberger SL et al. Psychophysical investigation of ganglion cell loss in early glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2005; 14: 11–19.
- Phu J, Khuu SK, Zangerl B et al. A comparison of Goldmann III, V and spatially equated test stimuli in visual field testing: the importance of complete and partial spatial summation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2017; 37: 160–176.
- Wall M, Doyle CK, Eden T et al. Size threshold perimetry performs as well as conventional automated perimetry with stimulus sizes III, V and VI for glaucomatous loss. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013; 54: 3975–3983.
- De Natale R, Marraffa M, Morbio R et al. Visual field defects and normal nerve fiber layer: may they coexist in primary open‐angle glaucoma? Ophthalmologica 2000; 214: 119–121.
- Giuffre G, Giammanco R, Dardanoni G et al. Prevalence of glaucoma and distribution of intraocular pressure in a population. The Casteldaccia Eye Study. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1995; 73: 222–225.
- Bedggood P, Tanabe F, McKendrick AM et al. Automatic identification of the temporal retinal nerve fiber raphe from macular cube data. Biomed Opt Express 2016; 7: 4043–4053.
- Ballae Ganeshrao S, Turpin A, Denniss J et al. Enhancing structure‐function correlations in glaucoma with customized spatial mapping. Ophthalmology 2015; 122: 1695–1705.
- Turpin A, Jankovic D, McKendrick A. Retesting visual fields: utilizing prior information to decrease test‐retest variability in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007; 48: 1627–1634.
- Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field. Arch Ophthalmol 1987; 105: 1544–1549.
- Russell RA, Garway‐Heath DF, Crabb DP. New insights into measurement variability in glaucomatous visual fields from computer modelling. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e83595.
Source: PubMed