[Skip to Navigation]
December 1961


Author Affiliations

317 E. Thirteenth St. New York 3.

Arch Ophthalmol. 1961;66(6):925-926. doi:10.1001/archopht.1961.00960010925031

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


To the Editor:  —Thank you for allowing me to read the comments of Dr. Evans, I wholeheartedly agree with his statement "one cannot be careful enough in his descriptions and claims when advocating a relatively new clinical method. Otherwise, disappointment of other workers becomes unavoidable and, even worse, the entire method may fall into undeserved discredit." However, I do not agree with his use of these reasons for justifying his excellent critique of my article. It is hardly likely that the above-mentioned disappointment and discredit will result from any statements in my article. May I make the following comments:1. Dr. Evans quoted Bangerter's technique perfectly accurately. However, my interpretation of this method was so written to simplify comprehending Bangerter's technique and to allow a more obvious comparison to Cüppers' (Curt, not Charles, as Dr. Evans correctly pointed out) after-image method. The positive scotoma which Bangerter effected at the site

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
Add or change institution