This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Anders Heijl, MD; Georg Lindgren, PhD; Jonny Olsson, MS

Arch Ophthalmol. 1987;105(11):1544-1549.

Abstract
• We assessed the variability of results in normal subjects of computerized static threshold perimetry of the central 30° field. Variability of measured threshold values was highly dependent on eccentricity. This included variability among individuals, test-to-test variability within individuals, and intratest variability. All values were significantly larger in the midperiphery than centrally. We found that the mean sensitivity decrement with age was eccentricity dependent, so that the age-corrected normal visual field became not only depressed but also steeper with age. Distributions of individual pointwise deviations from the agecorrected normal mean thresholds were significantly nongaussian. The dependency of variability on test point location, the nongaussian distributions of deviations from age-corrected means, and the variability of age-induced sensitivity reduction should all be considered in the interpretation of computerized visual fields, and particularly in the design of statistical programs for field analysis. Programs not considering these factors are likely to result in misleading analyses.

Author Affiliations
From the Departments of Ophthalmology (Dr Heijl) and Mathematical Statistics (Dr Lindgren and Mr Olsson), University of Lund, Lund, Sweden; and Malmö General Hospital, Malmö, Sweden (Dr Heijl).

Footnotes
Accepted for publication June 16, 1987.

Reprint requests Department of Ophthalmology, University of Lund, Malmö General Hospital, S-21401 Malmö, Sweden (Dr Heijl).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Test-Retest Variability of Microperimetry Using the Nidek MP1 in Patients with Macular Disease
Chen et al.
IOVS 2009;50:3464-3472.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Use of a Continuous Probability Scale to Display Visual Field Damage
Wall et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127:749-756.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Predicting Visual Sensitivity in Retinal Prosthesis Patients
Horsager et al.
IOVS 2009;50:1483-1491.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Quantifying Adaptation and Fatigue Effects in Frequency Doubling Perimetry
Anderson and McKendrick
IOVS 2007;48:943-948.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Monitoring Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression: The Effect of a Novel Spatial Filter
Strouthidis et al.
IOVS 2007;48:251-257.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Topography of the frequency doubling perimetry visual field compared with that of short wavelength and achromatic automated perimetry visual fields
Landers et al.
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2006;90:70-74.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Relationships between Standard Automated Perimetry, HRT Confocal Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopy, and GDx VCC Scanning Laser Polarimetry
Reus and Lemij
IOVS 2005;46:4182-4188.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Normal Visual Field Test Results Following Glaucomatous Visual Field End Points in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study
Keltner et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123:1201-1206.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Characteristics of the Normative Database for the Humphrey Matrix Perimeter
Anderson et al.
IOVS 2005;46:1540-1548.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Pointwise Linear Regression for Evaluation of Visual Field Outcomes and Comparison With the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study Methods
Nouri-Mahdavi et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123:193-199.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Appearance of the Pattern Deviation Map as a Function of Change in Area of Localized Field Loss
Asman et al.
IOVS 2004;45:3099-3106.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Neural Losses Correlated with Visual Losses in Clinical Perimetry
Harwerth et al.
IOVS 2004;45:3152-3160.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Relationship between Standard Automated Perimetry and GDx VCC Measurements
Reus and Lemij
IOVS 2004;45:840-845.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Perimetric Defects and Ganglion Cell Damage: Interpreting Linear Relations Using a Two-Stage Neural Model
Swanson et al.
IOVS 2004;45:466-472.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Anatomy of a Supergroup: Does a Criterion of Normal Perimetric Performance Generate a Supernormal Population?
Anderson and Johnson
IOVS 2003;44:5043-5048.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Relationship between Electrophysiological, Psychophysical, and Anatomical Measurements in Glaucoma
Garway-Heath et al.
IOVS 2002;43:2213-2220.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Spatial and Temporal Processing of Threshold Data for Detection of Progressive Glaucomatous Visual Field Loss
Spry et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:173-180.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Comparison of Pupil Perimetry and Visual Perimetry in Normal Eyes: Decibel Sensitivity and Variability
Hong et al.
IOVS 2001;42:957-965.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Long-Term Fluctuation of the Visual Field in Stable Glaucoma
Hutchings et al.
IOVS 2000;41:3429-3436.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Confirmation of Visual Field Abnormalities in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study
Keltner et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2000;118:1187-1194.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Simulation of Longitudinal Threshold Visual Field Data
Spry et al.
IOVS 2000;41:2192-2200.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Scaling the Hill of Vision: The Physiological Relationship between Light Sensitivity and Ganglion Cell Numbers
Garway–Heath et al.
IOVS 2000;41:1774-1782.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The SITA Perimetric Threshold Algorithms in Glaucoma
Wild et al.
IOVS 1999;40:1998-2009.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Severity and Stability of Glaucoma: Patient Perception Compared With Objective Measurement
Viswanathan et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 1999;117:450-454.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Quantitative evaluation of the optic nerve head in early glaucoma
Garway-Heath and Hitchings
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1998;82:352-361.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Early detection of visual field progression in glaucoma: a comparison of PROGRESSOR and STATPAC 2
Viswanathan et al.
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1997;81:1037-1042.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Variation of nerve fibre layer thickness measurements with age and ethnicity by scanning laser polarimetry
Poinoosawmy et al.
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1997;81:350-354.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Glaucoma Hemifield Test: Automated Visual Field Evaluation
Asman and Heijl
Arch Ophthalmol 1992;110:812-819.
ABSTRACT  

Evaluation of Methods for Automated Hemifield Analysis in Perimetry
Asman and Heijl
Arch Ophthalmol 1992;110:820-826.
ABSTRACT  

Response Properties of Normal Observers and Patients During Automated Perimetry
Nelson-Quigg et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 1989;107:1612-1615.
ABSTRACT  

A Clinical Study of Perimetric Probability Maps
Heijl and Asman
Arch Ophthalmol 1989;107:199-203.
ABSTRACT  

The Effect of Perimetric Experience in Normal Subjects
Heijl et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 1989;107:81-86.
ABSTRACT  

Perimetric Threshold Variability and Age-Reply
Sommer and Katz
Arch Ophthalmol 1988;106:451-452.
ABSTRACT  

Perimetric Threshold Variability and Age
Heijl et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 1988;106:450-451.
ABSTRACT