NINETY selected patients from the University of Michigan ophthalmology clinic have been studied with both flicker fusion and standard perimetric methods. The results obtained will be presented and analyzed to determine the comparative value of the two means of testing. The patients were chosen on the basis of known pathologic changes likely to give field defects. As is obvious from the protocols at the end of the paper, not all fields showed defects; however, the normals are included to illustrate the diversity of disease processes studied. In each patient both types of field testing were performed by the same examiner. Any positive findings by one method were very carefully tested by the other before concluding that either type of field examination was superior. The performance of both tests by the same examiner diminishes the possibility of erroneous conclusions by an enthusiastic flicker perimetrist, who may find lesions overlooked by routine
HAVENER WH, HENDERSON JW. COMPARISON OF FLICKER PERIMETRY WITH STANDARD PERIMETRIC METHODS. AMA Arch Ophthalmol. 1954;52(1):91–105. doi:10.1001/archopht.1954.00920050093011
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: