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  • Citing articles on Web of Science (14)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Glaucoma  • Ophthalmological Disorders, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Charles F. Bosworth, BA; Pamela A. Sample, PhD; Neeru Gupta, MD, PhD; Renuka Bathija, MD; Robert N. Weinreb, MD

Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116:1153-1158.

Objective  To determine if motion automated perimetry can identify early glaucomatous visual field defects in patients with suspected glaucoma (by disc), those with ocular hypertension, and those with primary open-angle glaucoma.

Methods  Motion automated perimetry, a foveally centered motion test, and standard visual field tests were conducted on one randomly selected eye of normal patients (n=38), patients with suspected glaucoma (by disc) (n=28), patients with ocular hypertension (n=18), and patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (n=21). Subjects' performance on both motion tests were compared with their performance on standard perimetry.

Results  Perimetric motion thresholds significantly distinguished the groups (P.001), while the foveally centered motion test was unable to separate them (P.32). Of the total patients, 90.5% of those with glaucoma, 39.3% of those with suspected glaucoma, 27.8% of those with ocular hypertension, and 5.3% of the normal subjects had abnormal results on motion automated perimetry testing. Perimetric motion thresholds were significantly correlated with standard visual field thresholds (P.001).

Conclusion  Motion automated perimetry identifies visual field defects in patients who already show standard visual field loss as well as in a moderate percentage of those with suspected glaucoma and ocular hypertension, indicating that the testing of discrete locations might be necessary for increased diagnostic utility.

From the Glaucoma Center and Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Diego (Mr Bosworth and Drs Sample, Gupta, Bathija, and Weinreb); and Department of Ophthalmology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario (Dr Gupta).

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

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Sources of Motion-Sensitivity Loss in Glaucoma
Falkenberg and Bex
IOVS 2007;48:2913-2921.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Relationship between Nerve Fiber Layer and Perimetry Measurements
Harwerth et al.
IOVS 2007;48:763-773.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Probing glaucoma visual damage by rarebit perimetry
Brusini et al.
Br J Ophthalmol 2005;89:180-184.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Detecting Early Glaucoma by Assessment of Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness and Visual Function
Bowd et al.
IOVS 2001;42:1993-2003.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Visual Function-Specific Perimetry for Indirect Comparison of Different Ganglion Cell Populations in Glaucoma
Sample et al.
IOVS 2000;41:1783-1790.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Loss of Neurons in Magnocellular and Parvocellular Layers of the Lateral Geniculate Nucleus in Glaucoma
Yucel et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2000;118:378-384.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT