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 Web of Science (8)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

WILLIAM H. HAVENER, M.D.; JOHN WOODWORTH HENDERSON, M.D.

AMA Arch Ophthalmol. 1954;52(1):91-105.

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

NINETY selected patients from the University of Michigan ophthalmology clinic have been studied with both flicker fusion and standard perimetric methods. The results obtained will be presented and analyzed to determine the comparative value of the two means of testing. The patients were chosen on the basis of known pathologic changes likely to give field defects. As is obvious from the protocols at the end of the paper, not all fields showed defects; however, the normals are included to illustrate the diversity of disease processes studied. In each patient both types of field testing were performed by the same examiner. Any positive findings by one method were very carefully tested by the other before concluding that either type of field examination was superior. The performance of both tests by the same examiner diminishes the possibility of erroneous conclusions by an enthusiastic flicker perimetrist, who may find lesions overlooked by routine . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
COLUMBUS, OHIO; ANN ARBOR, MICH.

From the Department of Ophthalmology, University of Michigan Medical School.

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