To describe a new time-saving threshold visual field-testing strategy-Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) Faster, which is intended to replace SITA Fast-and to report on a clinical evaluation of this new strategy. DESIGN: Description and validity analysis for modifications applied to SITA Fast. METHODS: Five centers tested 1 eye of each of 126 glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients with SITA Faster, SITA Fast, and SITA Standard at each of 2 visits. Outcomes included test time, mean deviation, and the visual field index (VFI), significant test points in probability maps, and intertest threshold variability. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation) test times were 171.9 (45.3) seconds for SITA Faster, 247.0 (56.7) for SITA Fast, and 369.5 (64.5) for SITA Standard (P < .001). SITA Faster test times averaged 30.4 % shorter than SITA Fast and 53.5 % shorter than SITA Standard. Mean deviation was similar among all 3 tests.VFI did not differ between SITA Fast and SITA Faster tests, mean difference 0%, but VFI values were 1.2% lower with SITA Standard compared to both SITA Fast (P [ .007) and SITA Faster (P [ .002). A similar trend was seen with a slightly higher number of significant test points with SITA Standard than with SITA Fast and SITA Faster. All 3 tests had similar test-retest variability over the entire range of threshold values. CONCLUSIONS: SITA Faster saved considerable test time. SITA Faster and SITA Fast gave almost identical results. There were small differences between SITA Faster and SITA Standard, of the same character as previously shown for SITA Fast vs SITA Standard. (Am J

Compared with ZEST, GOANNA was marginally less precise in areas of the VF that had spatially uniform sensitivity, but improved accuracy and precision in regions surrounding scotoma edges. GOANNA provides a principled framework for automatic placement of additional test locations to provide spatially denser testing around the borders of VF loss.

The data were gathered from 98 eyes of 98 ocular healthy subjects. The subject ages ranged from 18 to 79 years with a mean (and standard deviation) of 47 (17) years. Each subject underwent two visual field tests, one of the central visual field (64 locations within 26° of fixation) and one of the peripheral visual field (64 locations with eccentricity from 26° to up to 81°). Luminance thresholds for the Goldmann size V stimulus (with a diameter of 1.72° of visual angle) were obtained with the ZEST Bayesian test procedure. Each test was conducted twice within 90 days.

PURPOSE. To characterize visual loss across the full visual field in idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) patients with mild central visual loss. METHODS. We tested the full visual field (508 nasal, 808 temporal, 308 superior, 458 inferior) of 1 eye of 39 IIH patients by using static perimetry (size V) with the Open Perimetry Interface. Participants met the Dandy criteria for IIH and had at least Frisén grade 1 papilledema with better than À5 dB mean deviation (MD) centrally. Two observers (MW and AS) evaluated the visual field defects, adjudicated any differences, and reviewed optical coherence tomography data. RESULTS. We found a greater MD loss peripherally than centrally (central 268). The median MD (and corresponding median absolute deviations) was À1.37 dB (1.61 dB) for the periphery and À0.77 dB (0.87 dB) for the central 268, P < 0.001. There were about 30% more abnormal test locations identified in the periphery (P ¼ 0.12), and the mean defect depth increased with eccentricity (P < 0.001). The most frequent defect found was a temporal wedge (23% of cases) in the periphery with another 23% that included this sector with inferior temporal loss. Although the presence of papilledema limited correlation, 55% of the temporal wedge defects had optical coherence tomography retinal nerve fiber layer deficits in the corresponding superonasal location. Other common visual field defects were inferonasal loss, superonasal loss, and superior and inferior arcuate defects. Seven patients (18%) had visual field defects in the periphery with normal central visual field testing. CONCLUSION. In IIH patients, we found substantial visual loss both outside 308 of the visual field and inside 308 with the depth of the defect increasing linearly with eccentricity. Temporal wedge defects were the most common visual field defect in the periphery. Static threshold perimetry of the full visual field appears to be clinically useful in IIH patients.