Advertisement

Documenta Ophthalmologica

, Volume 69, Issue 1, pp 3–9 | Cite as

Computerized perimetry: Possibilities for individual adaptation and feedback

  • L. Frisén
Article

Abstract

Computerized perimetry is often poorly accepted by the tested subjects, presumably because of sparse feedback and lack of adaptation to individual capacity. Several remedies are suggested, including visual response feedback, active correction of erroneous responses, various fixation prompts, and continuous adaptation to current reaction time. Intuitively intelligible result displays are also desirable. A novel format representing threshold level by symbol size may meet this need.

Key words

computerized perimetry visual fields feedback ergonomics computers 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aulhorn E, Durst W. Comparative investigations of automatic and manual perimetry in different visual field defects. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 1977; 14: 17–22.Google Scholar
  2. Beck RW, Bergström TJ, Lichter PR. A clinical comparison of visual field testing with a new automated perimeter, the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer, and the Goldmann perimeter. Ophthalmology 1985; 92: 77–82.Google Scholar
  3. Bobrow JC, Drews RC. Clinical experience with the Fieldmaster Perimeter. Am J Ophthalmol 1982; 93: 238–241.Google Scholar
  4. De Jong DGMM, Greve EL, Bakker D, van den Berg TJTP. Psychological factors in computer assisted perimetry: automatic and semi-automatic perimetry. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 1985; 42: 137–146.Google Scholar
  5. Fankhauser F, Spahr J, Bebie H. Some aspects of the automation of perimetry. Surv Ophthalmol 1977; 22: 131–141.Google Scholar
  6. Frisén L. Vanishing optotypes. A new type of acuity test letters. Arch Ophthalmol 1986; 104: 1194–1198.Google Scholar
  7. Frisén L. A computer-graphics visual field screener using high-pass spatial frequency resolution targets and multiple feedback devices. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 1987; 49: 441–446.Google Scholar
  8. Greve E, Groothuyse MTHJN, Bakker P. Simulated automatic perimetry. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 1977; 14: 23–39.Google Scholar
  9. Heiji A, Krakau CET. An automatic static perimeter, design and pilot study. Acta Ophthalmol 1975; 53: 293–310.Google Scholar
  10. Lewis RA, Keltner JL, Johnson CA. Preliminary clinical trials with the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 1975; 42: 159–165.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Frisén
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyUniversity of Göteborg, Sahlgren's HospitalGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations