Static fundus perimetry using the scanning laser ophthalmoscope with an automated threshold strategy

  • K. Rohrschneider
  • M. Becker
  • H. Krastel
  • F. E. Kruse
  • H. E. Völcker
  • T. Fendrich
Clinical Investigation


• Purpose: The purpose of this study was to develop software that allows the performance of routine static threshold perimetry using the scanning laser ophthalmoscope (SLO) and the comparison of the results with conventional computerized cupola perimetry. The original software does not allow performance of static threshold perimetry within a reasonable examination time. • Methods: Static perimetry was performed in random order on 50 healthy eyes using our SLO staircase threshold perimetry technique and the Octopus 500 (program 38). We compared the relative sensitivities for each of 25 corresponding visual field locations. • Results: Mean sensitivity in the SLO perimetry amounted to 32.7 dB (range 25–37 dB) while it was 28.7 dB in the Octopus. For all test locations the SLO showed higher dB values on average. The mean difference between both methods was 3.7±0.8 dB (range 1.4–5.8 dB) when the test locations at the blind spot were excluded (linear regression between the two methods: r=0.843, P<0.0001). The mean time interval between two stimulus presentations was 2.5 s with the SLO perimetry. • Conclusion: With the Heidelberg software, automated static threshold perimetry using the SLO is possible within reasonably short examination times. The mean time interval between two test point presentations is about one tenth of that necessary using the original Rodenstock software. There is a systematic difference between SLO and Octopus fields of about 4 dB which was not very much influenced by the stimulus locations.


Test Point Blind Spot Test Location Stimulus Location Examination Time 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Acosta F, Lashkari K, Reynaud X, Jalkh AE, Van de Velde F, Chedid N (1991) Characterization of functional changes in macular holes and cysts. Ophthalmology 98:1820–1823Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alexandridis E (1970) Rümliche und zeitliche Summation pupillomotorisch wirksamer Lichtreize beim Menschen. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 180:12–19Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barlow HB (1958) Temporal and spatial summation in human vision at different background intensities. J Physiol (Lond) 141:337–350Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bebie H, Fankhauser F, Spahr J (1976) Static perimetry: strategies. Acta Ophthalmol 54:325–338Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burk ROW, Rohrschneider K, Völcker HE (1992) Dreidimensionale Biomorphometrie der Papille mittels der Laser-Scanning-Tomographie. In: Kampik A (ed) Jahrbuch der Augenheilkunde. Laser. Biermann, Zülpich, pp 55–67Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Enoch JM (1978) Quantitative layer by-layer perimetry. Proctor lecture. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 17:208–257Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gloor B (1993) Perimetrie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der automatischen Perimetrie. Enke, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hart WMJ (1992) Adler's physiology of the eye. Clinical application. Mosby, St. LouisGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heijl A (1977) Computer test logics for automatic perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol 55: 837–853Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kani K, Ogita Y (1978) Fundus controlled perimetry. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 19:341–350Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krastel H, Grimm H, Götz ML, Bergdolt K (1981) Der Grauglastest am Perimeter. Gesichtsfeldbefunde bei herabgesetzter Beleuchtung. Ber Dtsch Ophthalmol Ges 78:1041–1047Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krastel H, Jaeger W, Zimmermann S, Heckmann B, Krystek M (1991) Systematics of human photopic spectral sensitivity. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 54:323–339Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nasemann JE (1991) Scanning-Laser-Ophthalmoskopie. Prinzip und klinische Anwendung. Augenarztl Fortbildung 14:14–19Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Plesch A, Klingbeil U (1989) Optical characteristics of a scanning laser ophthalmoscope. In: Wampler JE (ed) New methods in microscopy and low light imaging. SPIE Int Soc Optical Engineering, Bellingham, pp 390–398 (Proc SPIEE 1161)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ring TM, Mueller AJ, Schaumberger MM, Lachenmayr BJ (1992) Static fundus perimetry with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope. German J Ophthalmol 1:249Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rohrschneider K, Becker M, Fendrich T, Weber J, Kruse FE, Burk ROW, Vö1cker HE (1994) Fundus perimetry using a Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscope (SLO) with an automated threshold-strategy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 35:2189Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rohrschneider K, Glück R, Burk ROW, Kruse FE, Völcker HE (1994) The real size of the optic nerve head — telecentricity and magnification curves of different fundus cameras. German J Ophthalmol 3:316Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rohrschneider K, Becker M, Kruse FE, Fendrich T, Völcker HE (1995) Stability of fixation — results of fundus-controlled examination using the Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscope. German J Ophthalmol 4:197–202Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schuchard RA (1993) Validity and interpretation of Amsler grid reports. Arch Ophthalmol 111:776–780Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sjaarda RN, Frank DA, Glaser BM, Thompson JT, Murphy RP (1993) Assessment of vision in idiopathic macular holes with macular microperimetry using the scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Ophthalmology 100: 1513–1518Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sjaarda RN, Frank DA, Glaser BM, Thompson JT, Murphy RP (1993) Resolution of an absolute scotoma and improvement of relative scotoma after successful macular hole surgery. Am J Ophthalmol 116:129–139Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stürmer J (1993) Fundusperimetrie. In: Gloor B (ed) Perimetrie. Enke, Stuttgart, pp 149–158Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stürmer J, Schrödel C, Rappl W (1990) Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscope for static fundus-controlled perimetry. In: Nasemann JE, Burk ROW (eds) Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopy and tomography. Quintessenz, Munich, pp 133–146Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stürmer J, Schrödel C, Rappl W (1991) Scanning laser ophthalmoscope for static fundus perimetry in glaucomatous nerve-fiber bundle defects. In: Mills RP, Heijl A (eds) Perimetry update 1990/91. Kugler, Amsterdam, pp 85–92Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sunness JS, Bressler NM, Maguire MG (1994) The pattern of visual loss in the geographic atrophy (GA) form of age-related macular degeneration: a scanning laser ophthalmoscope (SLO) analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 35:2146Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    The Laser Institute of America (1986) American national standard for the safe use of lasers. ANSI Z 136.1.1986, Laser Institute of America, Toledo, OhioGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Timberlake GT, Mainster MA, Webb RH, Hughes GW, Trempe CL (1982) Retinal localization of scotomata by scanning laser ophthalmoscopy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 22:91–97Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Timberlake GT, Van de Velde FJ, Jalkh AE (1989) Clinical use of scanning laser ophthalmoscope retinal function maps in macular disease. Lasers Light Ophthalmol 2:211–222Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Van de Velde FJ, Jalkh AE, Katsumi O, Hirose T, Timberlake GT, Schepens CL (1990) Clinical Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscope applications: an overview. In: Nasemann JE, Burk ROW (eds) Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopy and tomography. Quintessenz, Munich, pp 35–47Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van de Velde FJ, Timberlake GT, Jalkh AE, Schepens CL (1990) La micropérimétrie statique avec l'ophthalmoscope à balayage laser. Ophtalmologie 4:291–294Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Van de Velde FJ, Jalkh AE, Elsner AE (1991) Microperimetry with the Scanning Laser Opththalmoscope. In: Mills RP, Heijl A (eds) Perimetry update 1990/91. Kugler, Amsterdam, pp 93–101Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Webb RH, Hughes GW, Delori FC (1987) Confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Appl Optics 26:1492–1499Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Weber J (1993) Atlas der Computerperimetrie. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wolf S, Toonen F, Schaaf A, Arend O, Remky A, Reim M (1994) Light sensitivity and fixation stability in patients with subretinal neovascularisation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 35:1504Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Rohrschneider
    • 1
  • M. Becker
    • 1
  • H. Krastel
    • 1
  • F. E. Kruse
    • 1
  • H. E. Völcker
    • 1
  • T. Fendrich
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Department of Applied PhysicsUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations