Comparison of matrix with humphrey field analyzer II with SITA

Marie Josée Fredette, Anik Giguère, Douglas R. Anderson, Donald L. Budenz, John McSoley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

7 Scopus citations


Purpose. To study the performance of the Matrix perimeter compared with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II (HFA) with the Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm over the range of contrast sensitivities each machine could estimate. Methods. Fifty stable glaucoma subjects at various stages of disease and three normal subjects had visual fields testing done on five different days within 8 weeks with both perimeters. Intraclass correlation coefficient of mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, and the SD of repeat measurements were evaluated. The repeatability of the sensitivity estimates at individual locations and global indices was quantified, as well as their dependence on disease severity. The relationship between sensitivity determinations with the two instruments was explored (principal curve analysis). Results. Mean deviation on the HFA ranged from j31 to +2.5 dB. The mean deviation and pattern standard deviation had intraclass correlation coefficients above 0.90 for both instruments. Over most of the useful range (above 20 dB on the HFA), a difference of 1 dB for the Matrix corresponded to a difference of 2 dB for the HFA. The SD of repeat measurements increased with disease severity with HFA, but not with Matrix, except that values of 12 or 34 dB were highly variable on repeat. Variability was reduced for both HFA and Matrix when duplicate sensitivity values were used. A single Matrix test provided only 15 possible sensitivity values, unevenly spaced, but the average of duplicate measurements provided more numerous sensitivity values. A learning effect was detected for Matrix. Conclusions. The decibel values reported by the two machines are not equivalent. Variability of sensitivity determinations is affected more by the sensitivity level with HFA than with Matrix. Duplicate measurements for baseline and follow-up evaluation could be important, especially for Matrix. Further information on learning effects is needed, as is commercially available progression software for Matrix.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)527-536
Number of pages10
JournalOptometry and Vision Science
Issue number5
StatePublished - May 6 2015


  • Humphrey Field Analyzer
  • SITA
  • frequency-doubling technology
  • matrix perimeter
  • perimetry
  • test-retest repeatability

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology
  • Optometry


Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of matrix with humphrey field analyzer II with SITA'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this