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

Obligatory, Helpful, or a Waste of Resources?

Jonathan D. Wirtschafter, MD

Arch Ophthalmol. 1987;105(6):761-762.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

The publication of the Proceedings of the Sixth International Visual Field Symposium provides an occasion to reassess the usefulness of examining the peripheral visual field.¹ To gain historical perspective, it is important to note that tangent screen visual fields extending to a radius of 20° or 25° were the standard before the introduction of the Goldmann perimeter. In most cases, this instrument supplanted both the tangent screen and the arc perimeter. The Goldmann perimeter tended to erase the distinction between central and peripheral examinations because the kinetic examination proceeded from the periphery. The only special feature of the central examination was the insertion of a corrective lens in such a way that the outer aspect of the lens and the trial frame would not block the isopters being tested. The development of automated static perimetry reintroduced the distinction between central and peripheral examinations because the programs prespecified the number . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Minneapolis

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