Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 10, 2026
07:37
Assessment and Communication for People with Disorders of Consciousness
Published on: August 1, 2017
Psychophysical comparison of four automated perimeters
1College of Optometry, University of Houston, Texas.
Summary
Comparing different visual field perimeters revealed that background intensity and target size significantly impact results. While some adjustments can improve comparability, subtle differences in visual fields persist across devices.
Area of Science:
- Ophthalmology
- Visual Neuroscience
Background:
- Visual field testing is crucial for diagnosing and monitoring eye conditions.
- Discrepancies between different perimetry devices often necessitate repeat testing due to lack of comparability.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the "hill of vision" generated by four major types of perimeters.
- To investigate if user-defined stimulus configurations can achieve rough equivalence among instruments.
Main Methods:
- Comparison of visual field data from four major perimeter types.
- Exploration of alternate user-defined stimulus configurations, including background intensity, target size, color, duration, and noise.
Main Results:
- Background intensity and target size were primary factors influencing differences in visual field data.
- Target color, stimulus duration, and noise had minimal effects on the observed differences.
- Subtle, yet potentially significant, differences in the "hill of vision" remained despite stimulus manipulations.
Conclusions:
- Achieving perfect comparability between different visual field perimeters is challenging.
- Understanding the impact of stimulus parameters is essential for interpreting visual field test results across devices.
