Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology

, Volume 61, Issue 4, pp 299–306 | Cite as

Evaluation of kinetic programs in various automated perimeters

  • Shigeki HashimotoEmail author
  • Chota Matsumoto
  • Mariko Eura
  • Sachiko Okuyama
  • Yoshikazu Shimomura
Clinical Investigation



Kinetic programs in four automated perimeters were evaluated and compared for their clinical usefulness using four simulated visual field (VF) patterns.


Using the results of conventional Goldmann manual kinetic perimetry (MKP), simulated fields with concentric contraction, a temporal residual island only, a small central island with a temporal island, and a ring scotoma were created. Four kinetic programs, Humphrey 750i Kinetic Test (Humphrey), OCULUS Twinfield 2 Kinetic Perimetry (OCULUS), OCTOPUS 900 Goldmann Kinetic Perimetry (OCTOPUS GKP), and Kowa AP-7000 Isopter (Kowa) were tested by the 4 simulated defect patterns using stimuli of V/4e, I/4e, I/3e, I/2e, and I/1e at speeds of 3 and 5°/s.


Except Humphrey, OCULUS, OCTOPUS GKP, and Kowa could obtain isopters nearly comparable to those of Goldmann MKP. However, their results were considerably influenced by the examiner’s skill. Besides, Humphrey had restrictions on target presentation, and OCULUS and Kowa had problems in isopter drawing and in filling in the scotoma. OCTOPUS GKP was the only method that could correctly detect and depict all four defect patterns. It also had relatively shorter test durations among the three methods excluding Humphrey, which did not have a built-in function for test duration measurement. The perimeters’ test ranges for the periphery were 90° for Humphrey, OCULUS, and OCTOPUS GKP, and 80° for Kowa.


To assess kinetic fields with various defect patterns, OCTOPUS GKP seems to be the most useful method.


Automated kinetic perimetry Humphrey 750i Kinetic Test OCULUS Twinfield 2 Kinetic Perimetry OCTOPUS 900 Goldmann Kinetic Perimetry Kowa AP-7000 Isopter 



The authors wish to thank Ms. Reiyo Tahara and Ms. Yukiko Mimuro for their editorial helps.

Conflicts of interest

All authors declare that they have no competing interest.


  1. 1.
    Aulhorn E. Glaukoma-Gesichtsfield. Ophthalmologica. 1968;158:469–87 (in German).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grover S, Fishman GA, Brown J Jr. Patterns of visual field progression in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Ophthalmology. 1988;105:1069–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chauhan BC, Drance SM. The relationship between intraocular pressure and visual field progression in glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Expo Ophthalmol. 1992;230:521–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goldmann H. Ein selbstregistrierendes Projektionskugelperimeter. Ophthalmologica. 1945;109:71–9 (in German).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bittner AK, Iftikhar MH, Dagnelie G. Test-retest, within-visit variability of Goldmann visual fields in retinitis pigmentosa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;11:8042–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schiefer U, Strasburger H, Becker ST, Vonthein R, Schiller J, Dietrich TJ, et al. Reaction time in automated kinetic perimetry: effects of stimulus luminance, eccentricity, and movement direction. Vision Res. 2001;41:2157–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nowomiejska KE, Vonthein R, Paetzold J, Zagorski Z, Kardon R, Schiefer U. Comparison between semiautomated kinetic perimetry and conventional Goldmann manual kinetic perimetry in advanced visual field loss. Ophthalmoly. 2005;112:1343–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schiefer U, Nowomiejska K, Krapp E, Paetzold J, Johnson CA. K-Train- a computer-based, interactive training propram with an incorporated certification system for practicing kinetic perimetry: evaluation of acceptance and success rate. Graefes Arch Clin Expo Ophthalmol. 2006;244:1300–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nevalainen J, Paetzold J, Krapp E, Vonthein R, Johnson CA, Schiefer U. The use of semi-automated kinetic perimetry (SPK) to monitor advanced glaucomatous visual field loss. Graefes Arch Clin Expo Ophthalmol. 2008;246:1331–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nowomiejska K, Vonthein R, Paetzold J, Zagorski Z, Kardon R, Schiefer U. Reaction time during semi-automated kinetic perimetry (SPK) in patients with advanced visual field loss. Acta Ophthalmol. 2010;88:65–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wilscher S, Wabbels B, Lorenz B. Feasibility and outocome of automated kinetic perimetry in children. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmolo. 2010;248:1493–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Damgaard-Jenson L. Vertical steps in isopters at the hemianopic border in normal and glacomatous eye. Acta Ophthalmol. 1977;55:111–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stewart WC, Shields MB, Ollie AR. Peripheral visual field testing by automated kinetic perimetry in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1988;106:202–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miller KN, Shields MB, Ollie AR. Automated kinetic perimetry with two peripheral isopters in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107:1316–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gilpin LB, Stewart WC, Shields MB, Miller KN. Hemianopic offsets in the visual field of patients with glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Expo Ophthalmol. 1990;228:450–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Portney GL, Krohn MA. Automated perimetry, background, insutruments and methods. Sury Ophthalmol. 1978;22:271–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heijl A, Drance SM. A clinical comparison of three computerized automatic perimeters in the detection of glaucoma defects. Arch Ophthalmol. 1981;99:832–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lynn JR, Swanson WH, Fellmann RL. Evaluation of automated kinetic perimetry (AKP) with the Humphrey Field Analyser. Perimetry Update. 1991;1990(1991):433–52.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ballon BJ, Echelman DA, Shields MB, Ollie AR. Peripheral visual field testing in glaucoma by automated kinetic perimetry with the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Arch Ophthalmol. 1992;110:1730–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Omodaka K, Kunimatsu-Sanuki S, Morin R, Tsuda S, Yokoyama Y, Takahashi H, et al. Development of a new strategy of visual field testing for macular dysfunction in patients with open angle glaucoma. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2013;57:457–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Ophthalmological Society 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shigeki Hashimoto
    • 1
    Email author
  • Chota Matsumoto
    • 1
  • Mariko Eura
    • 1
  • Sachiko Okuyama
    • 1
  • Yoshikazu Shimomura
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of MedicineKindai UniversityOsakasayama CityJapan

Personalised recommendations