[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.163.92.62. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Download PDF
Figure 1.
Pattern deviations from patient 058 for achromatic automated perimetry (AAP), short-wavelength automated perimetry(SWAP), and frequency-doubling perimetry (FDP) during the 4-year study period.

Pattern deviations from patient 058 for achromatic automated perimetry (AAP), short-wavelength automated perimetry(SWAP), and frequency-doubling perimetry (FDP) during the 4-year study period.

Figure 2.
Pattern deviations from patient 098 for achromatic automated perimetry (AAP), short-wavelength automated perimetry(SWAP), and frequency-doubling perimetry (FDP) during the 4-year study period.

Pattern deviations from patient 098 for achromatic automated perimetry (AAP), short-wavelength automated perimetry(SWAP), and frequency-doubling perimetry (FDP) during the 4-year study period.

Figure 3.
Survival curve of patients with normal and abnormal short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP) findings, using the development of an abnormal achromatic automated perimetry (AAP) finding as end point.

Survival curve of patients with normal and abnormal short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP) findings, using the development of an abnormal achromatic automated perimetry (AAP) finding as end point.

Figure 4.
Survival curve of patients with normal and abnormal frequency-doubling perimetry (FDP) findings, using the development of an abnormal achromatic automated perimetry (AAP) finding abnormality as end point.

Survival curve of patients with normal and abnormal frequency-doubling perimetry (FDP) findings, using the development of an abnormal achromatic automated perimetry (AAP) finding abnormality as end point.

Table 1. 
SWAP Results Compared With FDP Results
SWAP Results Compared With FDP Results
Table 2. 
Comparison of Global Indices Among AAP, SWAP, and FDP Throughout the Study
Comparison of Global Indices Among AAP, SWAP, and FDP Throughout the Study
1.
Wolfs  RCWBorger  PHRamrattan  RS  et al.  Changing views in open-angle glaucoma: definitions and prevalence: the Rotterdam Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;413309- 3321
PubMed
2.
Quigley  HAEnger  LKatz  JSommer  AScott  RGilbert  D Risk factors for the development of glaucomatous visual field loss in ocular hypertension. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994;112644- 649
PubMedArticle
3.
Sommer  ATielsch  J.MKatz  J  et al.  Relationship between intraocular pressure and primary open angle glaucoma among white and black Americans: the Baltimore Eye Survey. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;1091090- 1095
PubMedArticle
4.
Quigley  HAAddicks  EMGreen  R Optic nerve damage in human glaucoma, III: quantitative correlation of nerve fiber loss and visual field defect in glaucoma, ischemic neuropathy, papilledema, and toxic neuropathy. Arch Ophthalmol. 1982;100135- 146
PubMedArticle
5.
Harwerth  RSCarter-Dawson  LShen  FSmith  ELCrawford  MLJ Ganglion cell losses underlying visual field defects from experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;402242- 2250
PubMed
6.
Johnson  CA The Glenn A Fry Award Lecture: early losses of visual function in glaucoma. Optom Vis Sci. 1995;72359- 370
PubMedArticle
7.
Quigley  HASanchez  RMDunkelberger  GRL'Hernault  NLBaginski  TA Chronic glaucoma selectively damages large optic nerve fibers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1987;28913- 920
PubMed
8.
Quigley  HADunkelberger  GRGreen  WR Chronic human glaucoma causing selectively greater loss of large optic nerve fibers. Ophthalmology. 1988;95357- 363
PubMedArticle
9.
Glovinsky  YQuigley  HADunkelberger  GR Retinal ganglion cell loss is size dependent in experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1991;32484- 491
PubMed
10.
Johnson  CA Selective versus nonselective losses in glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 1994;3 ((suppl 1)) S32- S44
11.
Yucel  YHZhang  QGupta  NKaufman  PLWeinreb  RN Loss of neurons in magnocellular and parvocellular layers of the lateral geniculate nucleus in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118378- 384
PubMedArticle
12.
Iester  MAltieri  MVittone  PCalabria  GZingirian  MTraverso  CE Detection of glaucomatous visual field defect by nonconventional perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;13535- 39
PubMedArticle
13.
Martin  LWauger  PVancea  LGöthlin  B Concordance of high-pass resolution perimetry and frequency doubling technology perimetry results in glaucoma: no support for selective ganglion cell damage. J Glaucoma. 2003;1240- 44
PubMedArticle
14.
Martin  PRWhite  AJRGoodchild  AKWilder  HDSefton  AE Evidence that blue-on cells are part of the third geniculocortical pathway in primates. Eur J Neurosci. 1997;91536- 1541
PubMedArticle
15.
White  AJRWilder  HDGoodchild  AKSefton  JMartin  PR Segregation of receptive field properties in the lateral geniculate nucleus of a New-World monkey, the marmoset Callithrix jacchusJ Neurophysiol. 1998;802063- 2076
PubMed
16.
de Monasterio  FM Asymmetry of on- and off-pathways of blue-sensitive cones of the retina of macaques. Brain Res. 1979;16639- 48
PubMedArticle
17.
Johnson  CAAdams  AJCasson  EJBrandt  JD Blue-on-yellow perimetry can predict the development of glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111645- 650
PubMedArticle
18.
Demirel  SJohnson  CA Short wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP) in ophthalmic practice. J Am Optom Assoc. 1996;67451- 456
PubMed
19.
Chaturvedi  NHedley-Whyte  ETDreyer  EB Lateral geniculate nucleus in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993;116182- 188
PubMed
20.
Maddess  THemmi  JMJames  AC Evidence for spatial aliasing effects in the Y-like cells of the magnocellular visual pathway. Vision Res. 1998;381843- 1859
PubMedArticle
21.
Kaplan  EShapley  RM X and Y cells in the lateral geniculate nucleus of macaque monkeys. J Physiol. 1982;330125- 143
PubMed
22.
White  AJSun  HSwanson  WHLee  BB An examination of physiological mechanisms underlying the frequency-doubling illusion. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;433590- 3599
PubMed
23.
Anderson  AJJohnson  CA Mechanisms isolated by frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43398- 401
PubMed
24.
Cello  KENelson-Quigg  JMJohnson  CA Frequency doubling technology perimetry for detection of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129314- 322
PubMedArticle
25.
Burnstein  YEllish  NJMagbalon  MHigginbotham  EJ Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry with humphrey visual analysis in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129328- 333
PubMedArticle
26.
Lester  MMermoud  ASchnyder  C Frequency doubling technique in patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma: correlation with octopus perimeter indices. Ophthalmology. 2000;107288- 294
PubMedArticle
27.
Brusini  PBusatto  P Frequency doubling perimetry in glaucoma early diagnosis. Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl. 1998;22723- 24
PubMed
28.
Landers  JGoldberg  IGraham  S A comparison of short wavelength automated perimetry with frequency doubling perimetry for the early detection of visual field loss in ocular hypertension. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2000;28248- 252
PubMedArticle
29.
Sample  PABosworth  CFBlumenthal  EZGirkin  GWeinreb  RN Visual function–specific perimetry for indirect comparison of different ganglion cell populations in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;411783- 1790
PubMed
30.
Bayer  AUErb  C Short wavelength automated perimetry, frequency doubling technology perimetry, and pattern electroretinography for prediction of progressive glaucomatous standard visual field defects. Ophthalmology. 2002;1091009- 1017
PubMedArticle
31.
Beck  RWBerstrom  TJLichter  PR A clinical comparison of visual field testing with a new automated perimeter, the Humphrey Field Analyzer, and the Goldmann perimeter. Ophthalmology. 1985;9277- 82
PubMedArticle
32.
Dacey  DMLee  BB The "blue-on" opponent pathway in primate retina originates from a distinct bistratified ganglion cell type. Nature. 1994;367731- 735
PubMedArticle
33.
Johnson  CASamuels  SJ Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38413- 425
PubMed
34.
Maddess  TSevert  WL Testing for glaucoma with frequency-doubling illusion in the whole, macular and eccentric visual fields. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol. 1999;27194- 196
PubMedArticle
35.
Victor  JDShapley  RM The nonlinear pathway of Y ganglion cells in the cat retina. J Gen Physiol. 1979;74671- 689
PubMedArticle
36.
Kaplan  EShapley  RM The primate retina contains two types of ganglion cells, with high and low contrast sensitivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1986;832755- 2757
PubMedArticle
37.
Kaplan  ELee  BBShapley  RM New views of primate retinal function. Prog Retin Res. 1990;9273- 336Article
38.
Shapley  RMVictor  JD The effect of contrast on the transfer properties of cat retinal ganglion cells. J Physiol. 1978;285275- 298
PubMed
39.
Solomon  SGWhite  AJRMartin  PR Temporal contrast sensitivity in the lateral geniculate nucleus of a New World monkey, the marmoset Callithrix jacchusJ Physiol. 1999;517907- 917
PubMedArticle
40.
Quigley  HA Identification of glaucoma-related visual field abnormality with the screening protocol of frequency doubling technology. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;125819- 829
PubMedArticle
41.
Iester  MMermoud  ASchnyder  C Frequency doubling technique in patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma: correlation with octopus perimeter indices. Ophthalmology. 2000;107288- 294
PubMedArticle
42.
Burnstein  YEllish  NJMagbalon  MHigginbotham  EJ Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry with Humphrey visual field analysis in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129328- 333
PubMedArticle
43.
Harbin  TS  JrPodos  SMKoller  AEBecker  B Visual field progression in open-angle glaucoma patients presenting with monocular field loss. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol. 1976;81253- 257
PubMed
44.
Fontana  LArmas  RGarway-Heath  DFBunce  CVPoinoosawmy  DHitchings  RA Clinical factors influencing the visual prognosis of the fellow eyes of normal tension glaucoma patients with unilateral field loss. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;831002- 1005
PubMedArticle
Clinical Sciences
December 2003

Detection of Early Visual Field Loss in Glaucoma Using Frequency-Doubling Perimetry and Short-Wavelength Automated Perimetry

Author Affiliations

From Eye Associates (Drs Landers, Goldberg, and Graham) and Save Sight Institute, Sydney University (Dr Graham), Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. The authors have no relevant financial interest in this article.

Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121(12):1705-1710. doi:10.1001/archopht.121.12.1705
Abstract

Objective  To investigate whether frequency-doubling perimetry (FDP) predicts future visual field loss with achromatic automated perimetry (AAP), just as it may be predicted with short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP).

Methods  We recruited 62 patients selectively from an urban glaucoma practice. At the commencement of the study, each patient had ocular hypertension with normal visual fields on AAP. Baseline SWAP and FDP were performed to determine whether underlying earlier visual field loss was present. Patients were then followed up prospectively for 3 years with annual AAP, SWAP, and FDP.

Main Outcome Measure  The development of visual field loss on AAP.

Results  Nine subjects had abnormal SWAP findings and 10 had abnormal FDP findings. At the conclusion of the study, field loss on AAP developed in 5, all of whom had preexisting abnormal SWAP and FDP results. No AAP visual field loss developed in patients with a normal SWAP or FDP. The rate of development of visual field loss on AAP was therefore significantly greater for those with abnormal SWAP(χ21 = 40.83; P<.001) and abnormal FDP findings (χ21 = 32.76; P<.001) than for those with normal SWAP and FDP findings.

Conclusion  In the same way that SWAP may predict AAP visual field loss, FDP may also detect field loss earlier than AAP.

OPEN-ANGLE GLAUCOMA (OAG) is a potentially blinding ocular condition that is characterized by a progressive optic neuropathy with or without characteristic visual field loss.1 It may be associated with raised intraocular pressure.2,3 However, to diagnose glaucoma at the optic disc or on the visual field, ganglion cell loss needs to occur. Up to 50% of local ganglion cell concentration may be lost to glaucoma before visual field abnormalities are detected using conventional achromatic automated perimetry (AAP).4,5 Using the theoretical models of selective loss and reduced redundancy, 6 tests of early visual field loss were developed. In the early stages of glaucoma, large-diameter ganglion cells may be lost selectively, 79 although this concept remains controversial.5,1013 Furthermore, a ganglion cell population, which has relatively few numbers, will have little reserve when loss occurs.6 Ganglion cell axons projecting from blue-on cells within the koniocellular14,15 pathway are about 50% larger than those in red- or green-sensitive pathways and are fewer in number.16 Tests that target them (eg, short wavelength automated perimetry [SWAP]) can therefore detect glaucomatous damage several years earlier than AAP.17,18

Magnocellular cells are larger than parvocellular or koniocellular cells and make up only 15% of total ganglion cell numbers.9,19 A subset of these with nonlinear (Y-like) properties (My cells) make up approximately 15% of magnocellular cells.20,21 Although evidence of this subset may be disputed, 22,23 the magnocellular line itself, having larger and fewer numbers of cells, may still be subject to selective loss and reduced redundancy. Tests that target them, such as frequency-doubling perimetry (FDP), 2426 should be able to detect glaucomatous loss before it becomes manifest on AAP.2730

We conducted a study to investigate whether subjects with ocular hypertension and normal AAP findings who have abnormal SWAP and FDP results will develop similar AAP abnormalities.

METHODS
SUBJECTS

A sample of 62 patients with ocular hypertension and normal AAP visual fields (ie, not manifesting a glaucomatous scotoma, as defined later for SWAP) were recruited selectively from a private glaucoma practice. Inclusion criteria were an intraocular pressure of at least 21 mmHg when not receiving medication, visual acuity of 6/12 or better, 5 diopters (D) or less of sphere and 3 D or less of cylinder in refractive error, no previous intraocular surgery, no other systemic illness, and no history of color vision deficit. Optic disc structure was not considered. After obtaining informed consent in accordance with the requirements of the South Eastern Sydney Area Health Services Clinical Research Ethics Committee, Sydney, New South Wales, each patient initially underwent AAP, SWAP, and FDP in random order. They were then followed up prospectively in a longitudinal fashion for 3 years. Testing was performed annually, each time in random order. The main outcome measure was the development of visual field loss on AAP.

PROCEDURE

The right eye underwent testing unless it did not meet the criteria. The Humphrey Field Analyzer II (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc, Dublin, Calif) was used to perform central 24-2 SITA standard (AAP) and central 24-2 SWAP tests. We performed SWAP using a background illuminated with a yellow light at 100 candela (cd)/m2 and a blue target stimulus (440 nm), size V (1.72°). The determination of an abnormal AAP or SWAP finding was based on the pattern deviation of the Humphrey Field Analyzer II probability plot and was established before the commencement of the study. Visual field loss was considered significant if it had a pattern typical of glaucoma and occurred in a field with 5 or more points of P<5%, with a cluster of 3 or more abnormal points of P<5% or 2 or more points of P<1%.

We performed FDP using a Humphrey-Zeiss frequency-doubling technology perimeter (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc) with a full-threshold C-20 program. This test uses a square target, 10° wide, consisting of alternating light and dark stripes (spatial frequency, 0.25 cycles per degree). The stripes were reversed at a rate of 25 Hz, and the contrast of the stripes was changed to determine the patient's contrast threshold. The target was presented in 17 zones (4 per quadrant) up to 20° from fixation, with a central 10°-wide circular zone. For FDP, visual field loss was considered significant if there were 2 or more adjacent zones of P<5% or 1 zone of P<1% on the FDP pattern deviation. The AAP, SWAP, and FDP fields were considered reliable if there were less than 30% false-negative and false-positive errors and less than 25% fixation losses.

For a subject to be classified as having an abnormal AAP, SWAP, or FDP finding, as previously described, significant visual field loss needed to have been seen on 2 consecutive visual field tests, with the scotoma involving the same quadrant in each case.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

At the conclusion of the study, we analyzed the results to determine the rate at which visual field test results became abnormal. This analysis was stratified for abnormal SWAP and FDP findings that occurred before the development of field loss on AAP. We also compared global indices and test times. We used SAS version 6.12 software (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC) for statistical analysis, including Mantel-Haenszel log-rank test, unpaired 2-tailed t test, and simple linear regression. In the log-rank testing, the development of visual field loss on AAP was considered a survival analysis failure. Mean defect (MD), pattern standard defect (PSD), and test time were used as linear variables. Test statistics and P values are presented.

RESULTS

Our sample included 26 men (42%) and 36 women (58%). At the beginning of the study, their average age was 58 years (SD, 12 years). Average follow-up time was 1137 days (minimum, 891 days; maximum, 1545 days). Nine subjects had abnormal SWAP findings and 10 had abnormal FDP findings on 2 consecutive testing times (Table 1).

At the conclusion of the follow-up period of the study, field loss on AAP had developed in 5 subjects. All of these had preexisting abnormal SWAP and FDP results (Table 1). The results from 2 of these subjects are illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2.From the time of entering the study, the median time to development of an abnormal AAP for those with initial abnormal SWAP or FDP findings was 2 years and 3 months. When the rate of the development of abnormal AAP visual fields was analyzed, there was a significant difference for those with preexisting abnormal SWAP findings vs those without (Mantel-Haenszel log-rank test statistic, χ21 = 40.83; P<.001) (Figure 3). A similar result was found for those with preexisting field loss on FDP (Mantel-Haenszel log-rank test statistic, χ21 = 32.76; P<.001) (Figure 4). On analysis of global indices, the MD correlated significantly between all tests (Table 2). The PSD correlated well between field tests using the Humphrey Field Analyzer (ie, AAP and SWAP). However, it correlated poorly when comparing FDP with AAP or SWAP (Table 2). This was found to be due to 5 FDP field tests performed during the duration of the study, in which there were test points with exceedingly high sensitivity. None of these tests had field loss considered abnormal. If these tests were excluded from the analysis, the FDP PSD correlated significantly with AAP (r2 = 0.121; P<.001) and SWAP (r2 = 0.114; P<.001).

During the period of the study, our subjects with normal SWAP or FDP findings demonstrated a decrease in AAP MD of 0.06 d B/y and an increase in AAP PSD of 0.06 d B/y. However, those who had visual field loss on SWAP had a decrease in AAP MD of 0.75 d B/y and an increase in AAP PSD of 0.49 d B/y, which was statistically significant compared with those with a normal SWAP visual field (t = 2.94 [P =.004] for MD; t = 4.26 [P<.001] for PSD). A similar finding was seen for those with visual field loss on FDP, who had a decrease in AAP MD of 1.01 d B/y and an increase in AAP PSD of 0.46d B/y. This too was significantly different from those with a normal FDP finding(t = 4.06 [P<.001] for MD; t = 4.15 [P<.001] for PSD).

Furthermore, the mean FDP test time was 4 minutes 50 seconds, which was not significantly different from that of the AAP at 4 minutes 59 seconds(t = 1.92; P = .06), but was significantly shorter than that of the SWAP at 11 minutes 55 seconds (t = 55.69; P<.001).

COMMENT

The diagnosis of open-angle glaucoma based on visual field loss may be significantly delayed, owing to the amount of redundancy the visual field has for an achromatic stimulus.4,5 Achromatic automated perimetry uses a white stimulus on a white background.31 Short-wavelength automated perimetry targets the koniocellular pathway, whose small bistratified ganglion cells32 possess large dendritic fields. They are fewer in number than those of the parvocellular pathway, resulting in sparce retinal coverage.16 The combination of low spatial frequency and high temporal frequency33,34 that FDP uses stimulates the My cellular pathway, which responds in a nonlinear fashion to changes in contrast.35,36 This property of the My cellular pathway results in a greater response to a change in stripe contrast than may be seen with the parvocellular or koniocellular pathway3539 and thus an earlier detection of glaucomatous damage.

Short-wavelength automated perimetry may be able to detect visual field loss 2 to 3 years earlier than AAP.17,18 However, the combination of the yellow background and blue target used can be affected by lens nuclear sclerosis, resulting in diffuse loss of visual field sensitivity, although this may be overcome by the use of the pattern deviation plot for the determination of visual field loss. Furthermore, we found maximum test times to be as long as 17 minutes 19 seconds per eye. This compares with the maximum test time for FDP of 6 minutes 31 seconds per eye.

Just as SWAP may predict future AAP visual field loss, FDP may be similarly predictive. However, the testing pattern for FDP presents targets in 17 zones(4 per quadrant) up to 20° from fixation with a central circular zone 10° wide.33,40 Because of this, FDP may lack the resolution for visual field loss that AAP and SWAP possess. There was a significant correlation for MD between all tests and for PSD between AAP and SWAP. However, this was not the case for PSD when comparing FDP with AAP or SWAP. There were 5 cases that had test locations with significantly high sensitivities. This affected the FDP PSD, thus affecting the linear regression relationship with the AAP or the SWAP PSD. A poor relationship between FDP and AAP PSD has been noted in past work.41,42 It has been attributed to a different retinal distribution for different cell types.42 Other factors such as type of test, stimulus size, stimulus duration, or number of stimuli may be responsible. The correlation between the FDP and AAP or SWAP PSD may not be an appropriate outcome factor in comparing these perimetric tests.

Visual field loss needed to occur within the same field quadrant on 2 consecutive fields in order for the subject to be considered to have abnormalities. Fields with an abnormality that initially developed during year 3 were confirmed in year 4. There were no fields in which new abnormalities developed during year 4.

The main limitation of this study was the sample size. It was performed in an urban glaucoma practice with no external financial subsidy. Despite the small sample numbers, we believe the statistical significance of the study findings should allow conclusions to be drawn. The methodology, including the determination of a significant visual field scotoma, was based on previous publications on SWAP.17,18 Several patients in our study who exhibited abnormal SWAP and FDP findings showed a few points of decreased sensitivity on AAP at baseline (Figure 1 and Figure 2).However, these did not meet the criteria for a significant scotoma, and thus the field was considered normal. Only 1 eye underwent testing, as testing of both eyes in a longitudinal study could artificially double the rate of conversions. As glaucoma is a bilateral disease, when one eye shows progression, there is a high likelihood that the fellow eye also shows progression.43,44 The decision to select the right eye preferentially unless contraindicated was made before the commencement of the study. The survival analysis performed in this study was a Mantel-Haenszel log-rank test, which describes the difference between the rates of failure(development of an abnormal AAP finding) over time, in terms of a test statistic and a P value. To perform a Cox proportional hazards regression and generate a hazard ratio and 95% confidence limits, both groups(those with normal and those with abnormal SWAP or FDP findings) need to have failures. Without this, the rate of failure cannot be compared. At the end of the third year of follow-up, there were still no failures in the normal SWAP or the normal FDP group.

Our study confirmed previous work by showing that future AAP visual field loss may be detected by SWAP at least 2 years earlier.17,18 Furthermore, we have shown that, like SWAP, FDP can detect the same visual field loss, which then became manifest on AAP. Consequently, FDP can predict future AAP visual field loss in patients with ocular hypertension. In our study, no abnormal AAP findings developed in patients with normal FDP or SWAP results. Global indices of FDP correlated with SWAP and AAP, and the test could be performed in a significantly shorter time than SWAP.

Back to top
Article Information

Submitted for publication December 14, 2002; final revision received May 20, 2003; accepted June 8, 2003.

We thank the staff at Eye Associates for their support and assistance.

Corresponding author and reprints: John A. Landers, MBBS, MPH, Eye Associates, Park House, Floor 4, Suite 2, 187 Macquarie St, Sydney 2000, New South Wales, Australia (e-mail: landers@lisp.com.au).

References
1.
Wolfs  RCWBorger  PHRamrattan  RS  et al.  Changing views in open-angle glaucoma: definitions and prevalence: the Rotterdam Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;413309- 3321
PubMed
2.
Quigley  HAEnger  LKatz  JSommer  AScott  RGilbert  D Risk factors for the development of glaucomatous visual field loss in ocular hypertension. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994;112644- 649
PubMedArticle
3.
Sommer  ATielsch  J.MKatz  J  et al.  Relationship between intraocular pressure and primary open angle glaucoma among white and black Americans: the Baltimore Eye Survey. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;1091090- 1095
PubMedArticle
4.
Quigley  HAAddicks  EMGreen  R Optic nerve damage in human glaucoma, III: quantitative correlation of nerve fiber loss and visual field defect in glaucoma, ischemic neuropathy, papilledema, and toxic neuropathy. Arch Ophthalmol. 1982;100135- 146
PubMedArticle
5.
Harwerth  RSCarter-Dawson  LShen  FSmith  ELCrawford  MLJ Ganglion cell losses underlying visual field defects from experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;402242- 2250
PubMed
6.
Johnson  CA The Glenn A Fry Award Lecture: early losses of visual function in glaucoma. Optom Vis Sci. 1995;72359- 370
PubMedArticle
7.
Quigley  HASanchez  RMDunkelberger  GRL'Hernault  NLBaginski  TA Chronic glaucoma selectively damages large optic nerve fibers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1987;28913- 920
PubMed
8.
Quigley  HADunkelberger  GRGreen  WR Chronic human glaucoma causing selectively greater loss of large optic nerve fibers. Ophthalmology. 1988;95357- 363
PubMedArticle
9.
Glovinsky  YQuigley  HADunkelberger  GR Retinal ganglion cell loss is size dependent in experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1991;32484- 491
PubMed
10.
Johnson  CA Selective versus nonselective losses in glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 1994;3 ((suppl 1)) S32- S44
11.
Yucel  YHZhang  QGupta  NKaufman  PLWeinreb  RN Loss of neurons in magnocellular and parvocellular layers of the lateral geniculate nucleus in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118378- 384
PubMedArticle
12.
Iester  MAltieri  MVittone  PCalabria  GZingirian  MTraverso  CE Detection of glaucomatous visual field defect by nonconventional perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;13535- 39
PubMedArticle
13.
Martin  LWauger  PVancea  LGöthlin  B Concordance of high-pass resolution perimetry and frequency doubling technology perimetry results in glaucoma: no support for selective ganglion cell damage. J Glaucoma. 2003;1240- 44
PubMedArticle
14.
Martin  PRWhite  AJRGoodchild  AKWilder  HDSefton  AE Evidence that blue-on cells are part of the third geniculocortical pathway in primates. Eur J Neurosci. 1997;91536- 1541
PubMedArticle
15.
White  AJRWilder  HDGoodchild  AKSefton  JMartin  PR Segregation of receptive field properties in the lateral geniculate nucleus of a New-World monkey, the marmoset Callithrix jacchusJ Neurophysiol. 1998;802063- 2076
PubMed
16.
de Monasterio  FM Asymmetry of on- and off-pathways of blue-sensitive cones of the retina of macaques. Brain Res. 1979;16639- 48
PubMedArticle
17.
Johnson  CAAdams  AJCasson  EJBrandt  JD Blue-on-yellow perimetry can predict the development of glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111645- 650
PubMedArticle
18.
Demirel  SJohnson  CA Short wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP) in ophthalmic practice. J Am Optom Assoc. 1996;67451- 456
PubMed
19.
Chaturvedi  NHedley-Whyte  ETDreyer  EB Lateral geniculate nucleus in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993;116182- 188
PubMed
20.
Maddess  THemmi  JMJames  AC Evidence for spatial aliasing effects in the Y-like cells of the magnocellular visual pathway. Vision Res. 1998;381843- 1859
PubMedArticle
21.
Kaplan  EShapley  RM X and Y cells in the lateral geniculate nucleus of macaque monkeys. J Physiol. 1982;330125- 143
PubMed
22.
White  AJSun  HSwanson  WHLee  BB An examination of physiological mechanisms underlying the frequency-doubling illusion. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;433590- 3599
PubMed
23.
Anderson  AJJohnson  CA Mechanisms isolated by frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43398- 401
PubMed
24.
Cello  KENelson-Quigg  JMJohnson  CA Frequency doubling technology perimetry for detection of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129314- 322
PubMedArticle
25.
Burnstein  YEllish  NJMagbalon  MHigginbotham  EJ Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry with humphrey visual analysis in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129328- 333
PubMedArticle
26.
Lester  MMermoud  ASchnyder  C Frequency doubling technique in patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma: correlation with octopus perimeter indices. Ophthalmology. 2000;107288- 294
PubMedArticle
27.
Brusini  PBusatto  P Frequency doubling perimetry in glaucoma early diagnosis. Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl. 1998;22723- 24
PubMed
28.
Landers  JGoldberg  IGraham  S A comparison of short wavelength automated perimetry with frequency doubling perimetry for the early detection of visual field loss in ocular hypertension. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2000;28248- 252
PubMedArticle
29.
Sample  PABosworth  CFBlumenthal  EZGirkin  GWeinreb  RN Visual function–specific perimetry for indirect comparison of different ganglion cell populations in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;411783- 1790
PubMed
30.
Bayer  AUErb  C Short wavelength automated perimetry, frequency doubling technology perimetry, and pattern electroretinography for prediction of progressive glaucomatous standard visual field defects. Ophthalmology. 2002;1091009- 1017
PubMedArticle
31.
Beck  RWBerstrom  TJLichter  PR A clinical comparison of visual field testing with a new automated perimeter, the Humphrey Field Analyzer, and the Goldmann perimeter. Ophthalmology. 1985;9277- 82
PubMedArticle
32.
Dacey  DMLee  BB The "blue-on" opponent pathway in primate retina originates from a distinct bistratified ganglion cell type. Nature. 1994;367731- 735
PubMedArticle
33.
Johnson  CASamuels  SJ Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38413- 425
PubMed
34.
Maddess  TSevert  WL Testing for glaucoma with frequency-doubling illusion in the whole, macular and eccentric visual fields. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol. 1999;27194- 196
PubMedArticle
35.
Victor  JDShapley  RM The nonlinear pathway of Y ganglion cells in the cat retina. J Gen Physiol. 1979;74671- 689
PubMedArticle
36.
Kaplan  EShapley  RM The primate retina contains two types of ganglion cells, with high and low contrast sensitivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1986;832755- 2757
PubMedArticle
37.
Kaplan  ELee  BBShapley  RM New views of primate retinal function. Prog Retin Res. 1990;9273- 336Article
38.
Shapley  RMVictor  JD The effect of contrast on the transfer properties of cat retinal ganglion cells. J Physiol. 1978;285275- 298
PubMed
39.
Solomon  SGWhite  AJRMartin  PR Temporal contrast sensitivity in the lateral geniculate nucleus of a New World monkey, the marmoset Callithrix jacchusJ Physiol. 1999;517907- 917
PubMedArticle
40.
Quigley  HA Identification of glaucoma-related visual field abnormality with the screening protocol of frequency doubling technology. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;125819- 829
PubMedArticle
41.
Iester  MMermoud  ASchnyder  C Frequency doubling technique in patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma: correlation with octopus perimeter indices. Ophthalmology. 2000;107288- 294
PubMedArticle
42.
Burnstein  YEllish  NJMagbalon  MHigginbotham  EJ Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry with Humphrey visual field analysis in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129328- 333
PubMedArticle
43.
Harbin  TS  JrPodos  SMKoller  AEBecker  B Visual field progression in open-angle glaucoma patients presenting with monocular field loss. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol. 1976;81253- 257
PubMed
44.
Fontana  LArmas  RGarway-Heath  DFBunce  CVPoinoosawmy  DHitchings  RA Clinical factors influencing the visual prognosis of the fellow eyes of normal tension glaucoma patients with unilateral field loss. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;831002- 1005
PubMedArticle
×