[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
May 1980

Automated Visual Field Plotters vs Tangent Screen Kinetic Perimetry

Author Affiliations

Milford, Conn

Arch Ophthalmol. 1980;98(5):930-931. doi:10.1001/archopht.1980.01020030924027

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

To the Editor  .—We recently employed an automated visual field plotter (Fieldmaster; manufactured by Synemed Inc, Berkeley, Calif) utilizing "suprathreshold static perimetry" as described and evaluated by Keltner et al.1 We were looking for an easyto-use device that yielded reliable and accurate visual fields under standard conditions. We were hoping that this method would decrease test time and patient fatigue. The instrument was intended for use in visual field screening and in definitive visual field plotting.We used similar testing conditions to those described by Keltner et al. Test spot luminance levels of 44 to 88 apostilbs (asb) (I/2e Goldmann), 135 asb (I/3e), 425 asb (II/4c), and 1,700 asb (II/4e) were used, with background luminance set at 31.5 asb. The results were compared with those of tangent screen kinetic perimetry, using 3-, 6-, and/or 30-mm white test objects at 1 m. A trained, experienced ophthalmic assistant performed the

References
1.
Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Balestrery FG:  Suprathreshold static perimetry: Initial clinical trials with the Fieldmaster automated perimeter . Arch Ophthalmol 97:260-272, 1979.Article
×