Comparison of Matrix with Humphrey Field Analyzer II with SITA
暂无分享,去创建一个
Douglas R. Anderson | Donald L Budenz | Marie-Josée Fredette | Anik Giguère | Douglas R Anderson | John McSoley | D. Budenz | A. Giguere | J. McSoley | M. Fredette | D. Anderson
[1] B C Chauhan,et al. Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects. , 1999, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[2] Robert N Weinreb,et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the Matrix 24-2 and original N-30 frequency-doubling technology tests compared with standard automated perimetry. , 2008, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[3] D. Badcock,et al. Psychophysical measurement of neural adaptation abnormalities in magnocellular and parvocellular pathways in glaucoma. , 2004, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[4] C. Johnson,et al. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. , 1997, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[5] D. Badcock,et al. Contrast sensitivity changes due to glaucoma and normal aging: low-spatial-frequency losses in both magnocellular and parvocellular pathways. , 2007, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[6] J. Katz,et al. Scoring systems for measuring progression of visual field loss in clinical trials of glaucoma treatment. , 1999, Ophthalmology.
[7] E. Blumenthal,et al. The Learning Effect in Visual Field Testing of Healthy Subjects Using Frequency Doubling Technology , 2002, Journal of glaucoma.
[8] N. Jansonius,et al. Strategies for improving the diagnostic specificity of the frequency doubling perimeter. , 2005, Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica.
[9] C. Johnson. Selective versus nonselective losses in glaucoma. , 1994, Journal of glaucoma.
[10] Chris A. Johnson,et al. Characteristics of the normative database for the Humphrey matrix perimeter. , 2005, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[11] E. Adachi-Usami,et al. Learning effect for frequency doubling perimetry in patients with glaucoma. , 2002, American journal of ophthalmology.
[12] Robert N Weinreb,et al. Visual function-specific perimetry to identify glaucomatous visual loss using three different definitions of visual field abnormality. , 2009, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[13] Brenda W Gillespie,et al. The collaborative initial glaucoma treatment study: baseline visual field and test-retest variability. , 2003, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[14] A M McKendrick,et al. Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry. , 2001, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[15] Michael Wall,et al. Repeatability of automated perimetry: a comparison between standard automated perimetry with stimulus size III and V, matrix, and motion perimetry. , 2009, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[16] H. Rootzén,et al. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. , 2009, Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica.
[17] William H Swanson,et al. Choice of Stimulus Range and Size Can Reduce Test-Retest Variability in Glaucomatous Visual Field Defects. , 2014, Translational vision science & technology.
[18] T. Hastie,et al. Principal Curves , 2007 .
[19] J. Wild,et al. Time-related variation in normal automated static perimetry. , 1991, Ophthalmology.
[20] W. Swanson,et al. Assessment of the reliability of standard automated perimetry in regions of glaucomatous damage. , 2014, Ophthalmology.
[21] Douglas R. Anderson. Automated Static Perimetry , 1992 .
[22] M. Araie,et al. Learning Effect and Measurement Variability in Frequency-Doubling Technology Perimetry in Chronic Open-Angle Glaucoma , 2002, Journal of glaucoma.
[23] Chris A. Johnson,et al. Predictive Value of Frequency Doubling Technology Perimetry for Detecting Glaucoma in a Developing Country , 2005, Journal of glaucoma.
[24] Visual field progression with frequency-doubling matrix perimetry and standard automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma and in healthy controls. , 2013, JAMA ophthalmology.
[25] K. Woodward,et al. The effect of attention on conventional automated perimetry and luminance size threshold perimetry. , 2004, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[26] C. Johnson,et al. Normal aging effects for frequency doubling technology perimetry. , 1999, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.
[27] J. Fleiss. The design and analysis of clinical experiments , 1987 .
[28] Ted Maddess,et al. Performance of nonlinear visual units in ocular hypertension and glaucoma , 1992 .
[29] Chris A. Johnson,et al. Comparison of the ASA, MOBS, and ZEST threshold methods , 2006, Vision Research.
[30] A M McKendrick,et al. Measurement error of visual field tests in glaucoma , 2003, The British journal of ophthalmology.
[31] Barry B. Lee,et al. Responses of primate retinal ganglion cells to perimetric stimuli. , 2011, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[32] H. Goldmann,et al. Fundamentals of exact perimetry , 1999 .
[33] Barry B. Lee,et al. An examination of physiological mechanisms underlying the frequency-doubling illusion. , 2002, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[34] Chris A. Johnson,et al. The repeatability of mean defect with size III and size V standard automated perimetry. , 2013, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[35] M. C. Leske,et al. Measuring visual field progression in the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. , 2003, Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica.
[36] A Heijl,et al. Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial: design and baseline data. , 1999, Ophthalmology.
[37] Allan Donner,et al. Testing the equality of dependent intraclass correlation coefficients , 2002 .
[38] A. James,et al. Evidence for spatial aliasing effects in the Y-like cells of the magnocellular visual pathway , 1998, Vision Research.
[39] J L Keltner,et al. Confirmation of visual field abnormalities in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group. , 2000, Archives of ophthalmology.
[40] R S Harwerth,et al. Glaucoma in primates: cytochrome oxidase reactivity in parvo- and magnocellular pathways. , 2000, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[41] M. Nicolela,et al. Effects of blur and repeated testing on sensitivity estimates with frequency doubling perimetry. , 2003, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[42] Chris A. Johnson,et al. Effect of Dichoptic Adaptation on Frequency-Doubling Perimetry , 2002, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.
[43] Samin Hong,et al. Learning effect of Humphrey Matrix perimetry. , 2007, Canadian journal of ophthalmology. Journal canadien d'ophtalmologie.
[44] Chris A. Johnson,et al. Mechanisms isolated by frequency-doubling technology perimetry. , 2002, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[45] Yuko Ohno,et al. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast strategies. , 2002, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[46] T. Maddess. Frequency-doubling technology and parasol cells. , 2011, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[47] P. Artes,et al. Response variability in the visual field: comparison of optic neuritis, glaucoma, ocular hypertension, and normal eyes. , 2000, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[48] Anders Heijl,et al. The Humphrey Field Analyzer, Construction and Concepts , 1985 .
[49] J. Wild,et al. Fatigue effects during a single session of automated static threshold perimetry. , 1994, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[50] Author Response: Frequency-doubling technology and parasol cells , 2011 .
[51] Hao Sun,et al. Linearity Can Account for the Similarity Among Conventional, Frequency-Doubling, and Gabor-Based Perimetric Tests in the Glaucomatous Macula , 2006, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.
[52] J. Myers. Comparison of Visual Field Defects Using Matrix Perimetry and Standard Achromatic Perimetry , 2008 .
[53] Paul H Artes,et al. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. , 2005, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[54] M. Gonzalez-Hernandez,et al. Long-Term Fluctuation of Standard Automatic Perimetry, Pulsar Perimetry and Frequency-Doubling Technology in Early Glaucoma Diagnosis , 2007, Ophthalmic Research.
[55] B. Chauhan,et al. Variability in patients with glaucomatous visual field damage is reduced using size V stimuli. , 1997, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[56] C. Johnson,et al. Simulation of longitudinal threshold visual field data. , 2000, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[57] J. Morgan. Selective cell death in glaucoma: does it really occur? , 1994, The British journal of ophthalmology.
[58] M Zingirian,et al. Learning effect, short-term fluctuation, and long-term fluctuation in frequency doubling technique. , 2000, American journal of ophthalmology.
[59] Shu Liu,et al. Comparison of standard automated perimetry, frequency-doubling technology perimetry, and short-wavelength automated perimetry for detection of glaucoma. , 2011, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.