Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Automated Visual Field Plotters vs Tangent Screen Kinetic Perimetry

1980; American Medical Association; Volume: 98; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1001/archopht.1980.01020030924027

1538-3601

DAMIAN GERBER, D. M. Brothers, R. C. Erickson, S. P. Sprotzer, Garreth Farrell,

Ocular and Laser Science Research

To the Editor .—We recently employed an automated visual field plotter (Fieldmaster; manufactured by Synemed Inc, Berkeley, Calif) utilizing "suprathreshold static perimetry" as described and evaluated by Keltner et al. 1 We were looking for an easyto-use device that yielded reliable and accurate visual fields under standard conditions. We were hoping that this method would decrease test time and patient fatigue. The instrument was intended for use in visual field screening and in definitive visual field plotting. We used similar testing conditions to those described by Keltner et al. Test spot luminance levels of 44 to 88 apostilbs (asb) (I/2e Goldmann), 135 asb (I/3e), 425 asb (II/4c), and 1,700 asb (II/4e) were used, with background luminance set at 31.5 asb. The results were compared with those of tangent screen kinetic perimetry, using 3-, 6-, and/or 30-mm white test objects at 1 m. A trained, experienced ophthalmic assistant performed the