Pseudo-loss of Fixation in Automated Perimetry

Sanabria, Olga; Feuer, William J.; Anderson, Douglas R.

doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(91)32338-8

Cited by 48 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Fixation losses are even less reliable as they are often identified as abnormal when related to head tilts that occur during the examination. 1 Use of the eye tracker is superior for fixation monitoring and also gives information on eye closure and ocular surface abnormalities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Comparison of Catch Trial Methods Used in Standard Automated Perimetry in Glaucoma Patients

Wall

Doyle²,

Brito³

et al. 2008

Journal of Glaucoma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When this is the case, head tilts can place the ''blind spot'' coordinates onto seeing retina. Sanabria and colleagues 1 have shown this and other technical artifacts account for about half of the instances of excessive fixation losses. Use of gaze tracking technology seems superior for fixation monitoring.…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

A Comparison of Catch Trial Methods Used in Standard Automated Perimetry in Glaucoma Patients

Wall

Doyle²,

Brito³

et al. 2008

Journal of Glaucoma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An eye patch was used to occlude the fellow eye. All visual field examinations met the following reliability criteria: fixation losses <20%16 or normal gaze tracking, false positive rate <10%17 and false negative rate <33%. The four tests were administered in a random order with at least a 5 min rest break between the testing sessions.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

SITA-Standard perimetry has better performance than FDT2 matrix perimetry for detecting glaucomatous progression

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The Humphrey Matrix (FDT2) may be more sensitive in detecting glaucomatous visual field loss than SITA standard automated perimetry (SAP) performed on the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA). Therefore, FDT may be a good candidate to determine disease progression in patients with glaucoma. Our aim was to test the hypothesis that automated perimetry using the FDT2 would be equal to, or more effective than, HFA SITAStandard, in identifying glaucomatous progression. Methods One hundred and twenty patients with glaucoma were tested twice at baseline and every 6 months for 4 years with HFA SITA-Standard and FDT2. FDT2 values were standardised to HFA SAP values. We used pointwise linear regression (PLR) over the full data series to identify glaucomatous progression and generated an array of results using three different criteria: (1) three or more clustered test locations progressing, (2) three or more non-clustered test locations progressing and (3) total number of progressing test locations. We compared HFA SAP and FDT2 for the number of locations signalled by the PLR detection algorithm. results Regardless of the criteria, HFA SAP with SITAStandard testing detected visual field progression at a higher rate than the FDT2 overall (P<0.001). Conclusion HFA SAP identifies glaucomatous visual field progression at a rate at least as high if not higher than FDT2.

show abstract

“…Automated systems measuring static or motion detection thresholds are primarily designed for the detection of subclinical disease states not detectable by confrontation, in particular early glaucomatous optic neuropathy, and are not necessarily suitable for characterising patterns of field defect, which are so important in neuro-ophthalmic diagnosis.12 Other problems include patient learning effects, physiological variation in field performance over time,'3"16 and fatigue. '7 Also, test strategies emphasise threshold changes across the horizontal meridian, but in neuro-ophthalmic assessment, the vertical meridian is of crucial diagnostic importance, and fixation testing strategies rely on repeated blind spot checking; this is of course lost in bitemporal defects with chiasmal disease.8 19 Table 4 summarises these techniques for assessing the visual field.…”

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%