Results 131 to 140 of about 4,732 (175)
Relationship between flicker FDF perimetry and standard automated perimetry
, 2010 P CALVO PEREZ +7 more
openalex +1 more source
Some of the next articles are maybe not open access.
Related searches:
Related searches:
International Ophthalmology Clinics, 1977
Luminance measurements of targets and backgrounds revealed differences for various types of perimetric instruments. A lack of uniform testing conditions for instruments of the same design was also noted. Of the instruments measured, hemispheric-projection perimeters seemed to provide the most repeatable test conditions.
Uniacke Ca, Schoessler Jp
openaire +5 more sources
Luminance measurements of targets and backgrounds revealed differences for various types of perimetric instruments. A lack of uniform testing conditions for instruments of the same design was also noted. Of the instruments measured, hemispheric-projection perimeters seemed to provide the most repeatable test conditions.
Uniacke Ca, Schoessler Jp
openaire +5 more sources
Albrecht von Graefes Archiv für Klinische und Experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 1972
A method enabling a fully automated computer analysis of the visual field is described. Starting from the most probable assumptions about the sensitivity distribution within the visual field, this distribution is approximated in 4 steps. Decisions are based on probability theory.
A Roulier, P Koch, Franz Fankhauser
openaire +2 more sources
A method enabling a fully automated computer analysis of the visual field is described. Starting from the most probable assumptions about the sensitivity distribution within the visual field, this distribution is approximated in 4 steps. Decisions are based on probability theory.
A Roulier, P Koch, Franz Fankhauser
openaire +2 more sources
HPR perimetry and Humphrey perimetry in glaucomatous children
Documenta Ophthalmologica, 1995Fifteen children aged less than 11 years, affected by congenital glaucoma, underwent visual field testing using two different methods: conventional computerized perimetry (24-2 Humphrey program) and High Pass Resolution perimetry (Ring test). The aim of the study was to discover which of the two perimetric techniques was more suitable for younger ...
M. Marraffa +5 more
openaire +4 more sources
Documenta Ophthalmologica, 1976
Automation of perimetry is quite feasible in normal subjects (3.6 % failures). It is equally feasible in patients with visual field defects not over 60 years of age (0 % failures). Automated examination ends in failure in 30 % of the patients in the older age groups seen in our clinic.
E. L. Greve +2 more
openaire +3 more sources
Automation of perimetry is quite feasible in normal subjects (3.6 % failures). It is equally feasible in patients with visual field defects not over 60 years of age (0 % failures). Automated examination ends in failure in 30 % of the patients in the older age groups seen in our clinic.
E. L. Greve +2 more
openaire +3 more sources
A Comparison of Peritest Automated Perimetry and Goldmann Perimetry
Archives of Ophthalmology, 1985Both Peritest perimetry and Goldmann visual field testing were performed on three groups of eyes. Eighty-one eyes had glaucoma with elevated intraocular pressures and abnormal visual fields determined by Goldmann perimetry. There were 47 eyes with suspected glaucoma, based on elevated IOPs and normal Goldmann visual fields.
Irvin P. Pollack +3 more
openaire +3 more sources