[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
June 1987

Examination of the Peripheral Visual FieldObligatory, Helpful, or a Waste of Resources?

Author Affiliations


Arch Ophthalmol. 1987;105(6):761-762. doi:10.1001/archopht.1987.01060060047029

The publication of the Proceedings of the Sixth International Visual Field Symposium provides an occasion to reassess the usefulness of examining the peripheral visual field.1 To gain historical perspective, it is important to note that tangent screen visual fields extending to a radius of 20° or 25° were the standard before the introduction of the Goldmann perimeter. In most cases, this instrument supplanted both the tangent screen and the arc perimeter. The Goldmann perimeter tended to erase the distinction between central and peripheral examinations because the kinetic examination proceeded from the periphery. The only special feature of the central examination was the insertion of a corrective lens in such a way that the outer aspect of the lens and the trial frame would not block the isopters being tested. The development of automated static perimetry reintroduced the distinction between central and peripheral examinations because the programs prespecified the number

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview