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; Peter Åsman, MD

Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107(2):199-203.

Abstract
• Perimetric probability maps depict visual field results in terms of the frequency with which the measured findings are seen in a normal population. We tested clinically the importance of the model of the normal visual field used to calculate such maps. Forty-one eyes of 41 normal subjects and 58 eyes of 46 glaucomatous patients were studied. Probability maps were calculated by means of two different models of the normal visual field. The first model assumed gaussian threshold distributions with constant variability across the field. The second used empirically determined nongaussian location-dependent threshold distributions. Probability maps using the empiric model allowed better separation between glaucomatous and normal eyes, and the number of significant points in normal subjects was in better agreement with the theoretically expected number. The gaussian model yielded an unacceptably high frequency of significant points in normal fields, particularly in the midperiphery. The clinical usefulness of perimetric probability maps depends critically on the choice of normal visual field model.

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Ophthalmology in Malmö (Sweden), University of Lund, Malmö General Hospital.

Footnotes
Accepted for publication Sept 12, 1988.

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

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

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

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

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

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

Automated Perimetry: How Do We Interpret the Results?
Wilensky
Arch Ophthalmol 1989;107:185-186.
ABSTRACT