To the Editor.
—"Even when testing of the field is automated, interpretation is not" has been stated by Anderson.1 In regard to the editorial on automated perimetry by Wilensky in the February 1989 issue of the Archives,2 I must congratulate the author for his depth of knowledge in the visual field area.I believe we should be happy with Humphrey perimeters and Humphrey technicians only after working with them ourselves for a while. Only in this way may we learn about automated perimetry's fitness, where it can fool the spectator, where it is superior to Goldmann perimetry, where and with what kind of patient Goldmann perimetry is preferable, and in which cases to perform and compare both types of examinations.Concerning the last, but not the least, sentence in the editorial, "The most important computer is still the one in the ophthalmologist's head," I would like to report
Manor RS. Will We Master the Humphrey Perimeter or Will the Humphrey Perimeter Master Us? Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107(11):1565–1566. doi:10.1001/archopht.1989.01070020643006
Ophthalmology in JAMA: Read the Latest
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.