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

JOHN N. EVANS, M.D.

Arch Ophthal. 1939;22(3):410-431.

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

I. NEUROSCOTOMETRY

When the progress of a branch of medicine seems retarded, it is well to review the material at hand. New views on familiar subjects may open new avenues of activity. I shall review certain of these well known ideas with regard to defects of the visual field and will show how one can interpret such defects in a better way by consideration of factors often overlooked.

About twenty-five years ago perimetry (in its clinical application) began to expand rapidly, and in consequence there was much confusion for a while ; studies of the peripheral field gradually became more reliable as a diagnostic aid, and the ophthalmologist began also to find that enlargements of the blindsopt of Mariotte had great significance. Soon changes in the central field came into their own, and the ophthalmologist learned to recognize the classic defects of glaucoma, of retrobulbar neuritis and of certain degenerations. Then . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
BROOKLYN

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