Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Ultra-wide-field fundus photography compared to ophthalmoscopy in diagnosing and classifying major retinal diseases.

Scientific reports·2022
Same author

Microperimetry in age: related macular degeneration.

Eye (London, England)·2017
Same author

Descriptive epidemiology of malignant mucosal and uveal melanomas and adnexal skin carcinomas in Europe.

European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990)·2011
Same author

In vivo confocal microscopy of ocular surface squamous neoplasia.

Eye (London, England)·2011
Same author

Long-term follow-up with optical coherence tomography and microperimetry in eyes with metamorphopsia after macula-off retinal detachment repair.

Eye (London, England)·2010
Same author

Peripapillary fundus perimetry in eyes with glaucoma.

The British journal of ophthalmology·2006

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 17, 2026

Motion-Acuity Test for Visual Field Acuity Measurement with Motion-Defined Shapes
06:25

Motion-Acuity Test for Visual Field Acuity Measurement with Motion-Defined Shapes

Published on: February 23, 2024

Macular automatic fundus perimetry threshold versus standard perimetry threshold.

E Midena1, P P Radin, E Convento

  • 1Department of Ophthalmology, University of Padova, Padova; G.B. Bietti Eye Foundation, IRCCS, Roma, Italy. edoardo.midena@unipd.it

European Journal of Ophthalmology
|February 13, 2007
PubMed
Summary

This study found that the MP1 microperimeter and the standard Octopus perimeter yield significantly different retinal sensitivity threshold values. Therefore, direct comparison of results between these two perimetry methods is not currently possible for clinical use.

More Related Videos

Assessing Early Stage Open-Angle Glaucoma in Patients by Isolated-Check Visual Evoked Potential
07:11

Assessing Early Stage Open-Angle Glaucoma in Patients by Isolated-Check Visual Evoked Potential

Published on: May 25, 2020

Measurement of Carotenoids in Perifovea using the Macular Pigment Reflectometer
09:35

Measurement of Carotenoids in Perifovea using the Macular Pigment Reflectometer

Published on: January 29, 2020

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 17, 2026

Motion-Acuity Test for Visual Field Acuity Measurement with Motion-Defined Shapes
06:25

Motion-Acuity Test for Visual Field Acuity Measurement with Motion-Defined Shapes

Published on: February 23, 2024

Assessing Early Stage Open-Angle Glaucoma in Patients by Isolated-Check Visual Evoked Potential
07:11

Assessing Early Stage Open-Angle Glaucoma in Patients by Isolated-Check Visual Evoked Potential

Published on: May 25, 2020

Measurement of Carotenoids in Perifovea using the Macular Pigment Reflectometer
09:35

Measurement of Carotenoids in Perifovea using the Macular Pigment Reflectometer

Published on: January 29, 2020

Area of Science:

  • Ophthalmology
  • Visual Science
  • Medical Devices

Background:

  • Standard perimetry is crucial for assessing visual field defects.
  • Newer technologies like fundus perimetry offer potential advantages in specific clinical scenarios.
  • Comparing novel device outputs with established methods is essential for clinical integration.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the comparability of retinal sensitivity thresholds measured by a new automatic fundus perimeter (MP1 microperimeter) against a standard perimeter (Octopus 101).

Main Methods:

  • Utilized automatic full-threshold fundus perimetry (microperimetry) on the macular area of nine normal subjects (18 eyes) using the MP1 microperimeter.
  • Quantified retinal threshold using an identical 10-degree grid (37 points) projected with a standard Octopus 101 perimeter.
  • Assessed intraindividual variation and inter-eye differences for both instruments.

Main Results:

  • MP1 microperimeter yielded a mean threshold of 19.7 dB (4.38 asb), while the Octopus 101 produced a mean threshold of 33.1 dB (0.53 asb).
  • Mean standard deviation of intraindividual variation was lower for MP1 (0.74 dB) compared to Octopus (1.51 dB).
  • No statistically significant differences were found between right and left eyes for either instrument, but no reliable mathematical relationship existed between the two perimeters' results.

Conclusions:

  • Fundus perimetry (MP1) is a precise, functional technique for threshold determination, even with unstable fixation or low visual acuity.
  • The MP1 microperimeter provides distinct threshold values compared to the standard Octopus perimeter.
  • Direct comparison of normal threshold values between the MP1 automatic microperimeter and the standard Octopus perimeter is not currently feasible.