Reliability of simultaneous visual field testing.

[1]  N. Kasahara,et al.  Improved automated perimetry performance following exposure to Mozart , 2006, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[2]  J. Diamond,et al.  Effect of a patient training video on visual field test reliability , 2003, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[3]  B. Bengtsson,et al.  False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability? , 2000, American journal of ophthalmology.

[4]  D. Shin,et al.  Analysis of reliability indices from Humphrey visual field tests in an urban glaucoma population. , 1997, Ophthalmology.

[5]  J. Wild,et al.  The influence of the learning effect on automated perimetry in patients with suspected glaucoma , 1989, Acta ophthalmologica.

[6]  E. Werner,et al.  Effect of patient experience on the results of automated perimetry in clinically stable glaucoma patients. , 1988, Ophthalmology.

[7]  J. Flammer,et al.  The influence of alcohol on the outcome of automated static perimetry , 2005, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[8]  Kō̜ngthưn Lutphō̜n Khwāmthukyāk.  Manual of operations , 2003 .

[9]  R. P. Mills,et al.  Continuous visual field test supervision may not always be necessary. , 1999, Ophthalmology.

[10]  L. Johnson,et al.  Effect of intermittent versus continuous patient monitoring on reliability indices during automated perimetry. , 1993, Ophthalmology.

[11]  G. Lindgren,et al.  The effect of perimetric experience in normal subjects. , 1989, Archives of ophthalmology.