Image processing of computerised visual field data.
Open Access
- 1 March 1995
- journal article
- research article
- Published by BMJ in British Journal of Ophthalmology
- Vol. 79 (3) , 207-212
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.79.3.207
Abstract
BACKGROUND--Computerised perimetry is of fundamental importance in assessing visual function. However, visual fields are subject to patient response variability which limits the detection of true visual loss. METHODS--A method of improving the repeatability of visual field data was demonstrated by applying techniques used in image processing. An illustrative sample of nine normals and nine patients with field loss was used. Two successive Humphrey fields were selected for each subject. Repeatability was defined as the standard deviation of the pointwise differences between sensitivity values of the reference field and repeat field. The field data were then separately subjected to Gaussian and median image processing filters and the repeatability was compared with the unprocessed field results. RESULTS--Improvement in repeatability, by a factor of approximately 2, was demonstrated by both processes. CONCLUSION--These techniques may improve the reliable detection of loss of visual function using computerised perimetry.Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- New approach to estimating variability in visual field data using an image processing technique.British Journal of Ophthalmology, 1995
- Interocular transfer of the movement aftereffect in central and peripheral vision of people with strabismus.1994
- The visual field indices in primary open-angle glaucoma.1993
- The repeatability of measurement of the ocular components.1992
- Long‐term follow‐up of baseline learning and fatigue effects in the automated perimetry of glaucoma and ocular hypertensive patientsActa Ophthalmologica, 1991
- The Effect of Perimetric Experience in Normal SubjectsArchives of Ophthalmology (1950), 1989
- Probing visual function with psychophysics and photochemistryEye, 1989
- STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENTThe Lancet, 1986