This Article  • 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; Peter Åsman, MD

Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107(2):204-208.

Abstract
• Automated visual field charts may be difficult to interpret partly because of the magnitude and complex nature of normal threshold variability. We devised two types of empiric probability maps in which this variability is taken into account and the significances of measured threshold values are displayed. These maps are highly sensitive to nonobvious but significant paracentral field loss but will at the same time deemphasize false-positive patterns commonly found more peripherally. They also frequently show field defects before these are obvious in conventional threshold printouts. In addition, they differentiate between generalized loss of sensitivity and localized field defects.

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

Footnotes
Accepted for publication Sept 12, 1988.

Reprint requests to Department of Ophthalmology, 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

Visual field index rate and event-based glaucoma progression analysis: comparison in a glaucoma population
Casas-Llera et al.
Br J Ophthalmol 2009;93:1576-1579.
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  

Comparison of Methods to Predict Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma
Nouri-Mahdavi et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2007;125:1176-1181.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Spatial Characteristics of Visual Field Progression Determined by Monte Carlo Simulation: Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study
Pascual et al.
IOVS 2007;48:1642-1650.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma: Total Versus Pattern Deviation Analyses
Artes et al.
IOVS 2005;46:4600-4606.
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  

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  

Normal Intersubject Threshold Variability and Normal Limits of the SITA SWAP and Full Threshold SWAP Perimetric Programs
Bengtsson and Heijl
IOVS 2003;44:5029-5034.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: Baseline Visual Field and Test-Retest Variability
Gillespie et al.
IOVS 2003;44:2613-2620.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A New Rapid Threshold Algorithm for Short-Wavelength Automated Perimetry
Bengtsson
IOVS 2003;44:1388-1394.
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  

A Comparison of the Pattern- and Total Deviation-Based Glaucoma Change Probability Programs
Katz
IOVS 2000;41:1012-1016.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Multivariate Approach for Quantification of Morphologic and Functional Damage in Glaucoma
Martus et al.
IOVS 2000;41:1099-1110.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Open-Angle Glaucoma
Quigley
NEJM 1993;328:1097-1106.
FULL TEXT  

Comparison of Analytic Algorithms for Detecting Glaucomatous Visual Field Loss
Katz et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 1991;109:1684-1689.
ABSTRACT  

Visual Field Interpretation With Empiric Probability Maps
Johnson
Arch Ophthalmol 1989;107:1423-1423.
ABSTRACT  

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