Pseudo-loss of fixation in automated perimetry

O. Sanabria, William J Feuer, Douglas Anderson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

During automated perimetry with the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer, field examinations are labeled unreliable whenever the reported rate of fixation loss is 20% or more. The reported rate of fixation loss results in part from times when the patient's gaze drifts from the fixation point during the examination, but also in part from technical artifacts such as faulty initial localization of the blind spot or false-positive responses by the patient. It was found that technical artifacts caused nearly half of the instances in which a field examination had a reported fixation loss rate of greater than 20%. It was also found that the perimetrist can prevent the artifacts, with the result that the frequency of field examinations labeled as having excessive fixation loss fell from 26% to 14%.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)76-78
Number of pages3
JournalOphthalmology
Volume98
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jan 1 1991

Fingerprint

Visual Field Tests
Artifacts
Optic Disk
Visual Fields

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Sanabria, O., Feuer, W. J., & Anderson, D. (1991). Pseudo-loss of fixation in automated perimetry. Ophthalmology, 98(1), 76-78.

Pseudo-loss of fixation in automated perimetry. / Sanabria, O.; Feuer, William J; Anderson, Douglas.

In: Ophthalmology, Vol. 98, No. 1, 01.01.1991, p. 76-78.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sanabria, O, Feuer, WJ & Anderson, D 1991, 'Pseudo-loss of fixation in automated perimetry', Ophthalmology, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 76-78.
Sanabria O, Feuer WJ, Anderson D. Pseudo-loss of fixation in automated perimetry. Ophthalmology. 1991 Jan 1;98(1):76-78.
Sanabria, O. ; Feuer, William J ; Anderson, Douglas. / Pseudo-loss of fixation in automated perimetry. In: Ophthalmology. 1991 ; Vol. 98, No. 1. pp. 76-78.
@article{5a5de7e6ef4b484b86ce2b64ea6da53a,
title = "Pseudo-loss of fixation in automated perimetry",
abstract = "During automated perimetry with the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer, field examinations are labeled unreliable whenever the reported rate of fixation loss is 20{\%} or more. The reported rate of fixation loss results in part from times when the patient's gaze drifts from the fixation point during the examination, but also in part from technical artifacts such as faulty initial localization of the blind spot or false-positive responses by the patient. It was found that technical artifacts caused nearly half of the instances in which a field examination had a reported fixation loss rate of greater than 20{\%}. It was also found that the perimetrist can prevent the artifacts, with the result that the frequency of field examinations labeled as having excessive fixation loss fell from 26{\%} to 14{\%}.",
author = "O. Sanabria and Feuer, {William J} and Douglas Anderson",
year = "1991",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "98",
pages = "76--78",
journal = "Ophthalmology",
issn = "0161-6420",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pseudo-loss of fixation in automated perimetry

AU - Sanabria, O.

AU - Feuer, William J

AU - Anderson, Douglas

PY - 1991/1/1

Y1 - 1991/1/1

N2 - During automated perimetry with the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer, field examinations are labeled unreliable whenever the reported rate of fixation loss is 20% or more. The reported rate of fixation loss results in part from times when the patient's gaze drifts from the fixation point during the examination, but also in part from technical artifacts such as faulty initial localization of the blind spot or false-positive responses by the patient. It was found that technical artifacts caused nearly half of the instances in which a field examination had a reported fixation loss rate of greater than 20%. It was also found that the perimetrist can prevent the artifacts, with the result that the frequency of field examinations labeled as having excessive fixation loss fell from 26% to 14%.

AB - During automated perimetry with the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer, field examinations are labeled unreliable whenever the reported rate of fixation loss is 20% or more. The reported rate of fixation loss results in part from times when the patient's gaze drifts from the fixation point during the examination, but also in part from technical artifacts such as faulty initial localization of the blind spot or false-positive responses by the patient. It was found that technical artifacts caused nearly half of the instances in which a field examination had a reported fixation loss rate of greater than 20%. It was also found that the perimetrist can prevent the artifacts, with the result that the frequency of field examinations labeled as having excessive fixation loss fell from 26% to 14%.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025961993&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025961993&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 2023737

AN - SCOPUS:0025961993

VL - 98

SP - 76

EP - 78

JO - Ophthalmology

JF - Ophthalmology

SN - 0161-6420

IS - 1

ER -