Skip to main content
Log in

Normal visual fields measured with Octopus Program G1

I. Differential light sensitivity at individual test locations

  • Clinical Investigation
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Exact knowledge of the normal variation of visual fields and the influence of age upon them is essential to differentiate normal from abnormal results, e.g., in glaucoma suspects. This study evaluates the normal variability of differential light sensitivity at individual test locations and incorporates a data base of a multicenter study performed with Octopus 201 perimeters using Program G1. The 824 fields thus obtained included 139 fields of 139 healthy volunteers who had undergone two previous visual fields and completed all three phases of the program. Sensitivity decreased linearly with age, an effect which for individual test locations ranged between 0.036 and 0.107 dB/year and which became more pronounced towards the periphery. On average, the age-related effects explained only 17% of the interindividual variation (range 4%–31%). The interindividual variation within a test averaged 4.6 dB2 and revealed a moderate, but quadratic increase towards the periphery. The intra-individual short-term variation was considerably lower, averaging 2.2 dB2. There was a similar modest, quadratic increase of the intra-individual variation towards the periphery. The results may help distinguish incipient disease manifestations from normal variation of perimetric results. Furthermore, the results give insight into the calculation of global visual field indices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anderson DR, Feuer WJ, Alward WLM, Skuta GL (1989) Threshold equivalence between perimeters. Am J Ophthalmol 107:493–505

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bebie H (1985) Computerized techniques of threshold determination. In: Whalen WR, Spaeth GL (eds) Computerized visual fields: what they are and how to use them. Slack, Thorofare, NJ, pp 29–44

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bebie H, Flammer J, Bebié (1990) The cumulative defect curve: separation of local and diffuse components of the visual field damage. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 227:9–12

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bebie H, Fankhauser F, Spahr J (1976) Static perimetry: strategies. Acta Ophthalmol 54:325–338

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bebie H, Fankhauser F, Spahr J (1976) Static perimetry: accuracy and fluctuations. Acta Ophthalmol 54:339–348

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brenton RS, Phelps CD (1986) The normal visual field in the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Ophthalmologica 193:56–74

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dumbleton KA, Flanagan JG, Trope GE, Coyle E (1992) A fast strategy for threshold estimation in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 33:1387

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fankhauser F (1979) Problems related to the design of automatic perimeters. III. The display and interpretation of perimetric results by automated methods. Doc Ophthalmol 47:113–121

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fankhauser F, Koch P, Roulier A (1972) On automation of perimetry. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 187:126–150

    Google Scholar 

  10. Flammer J (1986) The concepts of visual field indices. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 224:389–392

    Google Scholar 

  11. Flammer J, Zulauf M (1985) The frequency distribution of the deviations in static perimetry. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 42:17–24

    Google Scholar 

  12. Flammer J, Drance SM, Fankhauser F, Augustiny L (1984) Differential light threshold in automated static perimetry. Factors influencing short-term fluctuation. Arch Ophthalmol 102:876–879

    Google Scholar 

  13. Flammer J, Drance SM, Augustiny L, Funkhouser A (1985) Quantificatof glaucomatous visual field defects with automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 26:176–181

    Google Scholar 

  14. Flammer J, Jenni F, Bebié H, Keller B (1987) The Octopus glaucoma program G1. Glaucoma 9:67–72

    Google Scholar 

  15. Haas A, Hammer J, Schneider U (1986) Influence of age on the visual fields of normal subjects. Am J Ophthalmol 101:199–203

    Google Scholar 

  16. Heijl A, Åsman P (1989) A clinical study of perimetric probability maps. Arch Ophthalmol 107 (2): 199–203

    Google Scholar 

  17. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J (1987) Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field. Arch Ophthalmol 105:1544–1549

    Google Scholar 

  18. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J (1988) Perimetric threshold variability and age. Arch Ophthalmol 106:450–452

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hoskin HD, Migliazzo C (1985) Development of a visual field screening test using a Humphrey visual field analyzer. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 42:85–90

    Google Scholar 

  20. Iwase A, Kitazawa Y, Ohno Y (1988) On age-related norms of the visual field. Jpn J Ophthalmol 32:429–437

    Google Scholar 

  21. Katz J, Sommer A (1986) Asymmetry and variation in the normal hill of vision. Arch Ophthalmol 104:165–168

    Google Scholar 

  22. Moss ID, Hudson C, Dengler-Harles M, Wild JM, Whitaker DJ, O'Neill EC (1992) A 3dB step single crossing algorithm for threshold automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 33:969

    Google Scholar 

  23. Parrish RK II, Schiffman J, Anderson DR (1984) Static and kinetic visual field testing. Reproducibility in normal volunteers. Arch Ophthalmol 102:1497–1502

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rutishauser C, Flammer J (1988) Retests in static perimetry. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 226:75–77

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rutishauser C, Flammer J, Haas A (1989) The distribution of normal values in automated perimetry. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 227:513–517

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sues FE, Verriest G (1987) Inter- and intraindividual sensitivity variations with manual and automated static perimeters. Ophthalmologica 195:209–214

    Google Scholar 

  27. Zulauf M, Caprioli J (1991) Fluctuations of the visual field in glaucoma. Ophthalmic Clin North Am 4:671–697

    Google Scholar 

  28. Zulauf J, Caprioli J (1992) What constitutes progression of glaucomatous visual field defects? Semin Ophthalmol 7:130–146

    Google Scholar 

  29. Zulauf M, Caprioli M, Hoffman D (1991) Asymmetry of the visual field in a normal population. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci [Suppl] 32:1192

    Google Scholar 

  30. Zulauf M, LeBlanc RP, Flammer J (1994) Normal visual fields measured with Octopus Program GI. II. Global visual-field indices. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 232:516–522

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This study was carried out by the members of the G1 Normal Value Study Group. A list of participants appears at the end of the article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zulauf, M., Zulauf, M., Flammer, J. et al. Normal visual fields measured with Octopus Program G1. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 232, 509–515 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00181992

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00181992

Keywords

Navigation