146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22681943)
1. A new perimeter using the preferential looking response to assess peripheral visual fields in young and developmentally delayed children.
Allen LE; Slater ME; Proffitt RV; Quarton E; Pelah A
J AAPOS; 2012 Jun; 16(3):261-5. PubMed ID: 22681943
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The accuracy of confrontation visual field test in comparison with automated perimetry.
Johnson LN; Baloh FG
J Natl Med Assoc; 1991 Oct; 83(10):895-8. PubMed ID: 1800764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry in children with neurodisability or isolated visual pathway lesions: observational cohort study.
Tailor V; Glaze S; Unwin H; Bowman R; Thompson G; Dahlmann-Noor A
Br J Ophthalmol; 2016 Oct; 100(10):1427-32. PubMed ID: 26740608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Clinical applicability of the Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimeter in children with and without visual impairment.
Simkin SK; Misra SL; Kasture A; McGhee CN; Dai S
Clin Exp Optom; 2019 Jan; 102(1):70-78. PubMed ID: 29938834
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Detection and characterisation of visual field defects using Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimetry in children with brain tumours.
Murray IC; Schmoll C; Perperidis A; Brash HM; McTrusty AD; Cameron LA; Wilkinson AG; Mulvihill AO; Fleck BW; Minns RA
Eye (Lond); 2018 Oct; 32(10):1563-1573. PubMed ID: 29880917
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Feasibility of saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry: a method of automated static perimetry for children using eye tracking.
Murray IC; Fleck BW; Brash HM; Macrae ME; Tan LL; Minns RA
Ophthalmology; 2009 Oct; 116(10):2017-26. PubMed ID: 19560207
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Confrontation visual field loss as a function of decibel sensitivity loss on automated static perimetry. Implications on the accuracy of confrontation visual field testing.
Shahinfar S; Johnson LN; Madsen RW
Ophthalmology; 1995 Jun; 102(6):872-7. PubMed ID: 7777293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Feasibility and outcome of automated kinetic perimetry in children.
Wilscher S; Wabbels B; Lorenz B
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2010 Oct; 248(10):1493-500. PubMed ID: 20232076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Perimetry in young and neurologically impaired children: the Behavioral Visual Field (BEFIE) Screening Test revisited.
Koenraads Y; Braun KP; van der Linden DC; Imhof SM; Porro GL
JAMA Ophthalmol; 2015 Mar; 133(3):319-25. PubMed ID: 25541916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Use of a portable head mounted perimetry system to assess bedside visual fields.
Hollander DA; Volpe NJ; Moster ML; Liu GT; Balcer LJ; Judy KD; Galetta SL
Br J Ophthalmol; 2000 Oct; 84(10):1185-90. PubMed ID: 11004108
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Identification of functional visual field loss by automated static perimetry.
Frisén L
Acta Ophthalmol; 2014 Dec; 92(8):805-9. PubMed ID: 24698019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A traffic perimetry test that adheres to the European visual field requirements for group 2 drivers.
Jørstad ØK; Jonsdottir TE; Zysset S; Rowe FJ
Acta Ophthalmol; 2021 Nov; 99(7):e1253-e1254. PubMed ID: 33421353
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. A novel paediatric game-based visual-fields assessor.
Aslam TM; Rahman W; Henson D; Khaw PT
Br J Ophthalmol; 2011 Jul; 95(7):921-4. PubMed ID: 21464037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effectiveness of testing visual fields by confrontation.
Pandit RJ; Gales K; Griffiths PG
Lancet; 2001 Oct; 358(9290):1339-40. PubMed ID: 11684217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The effect of flicker rate on measured visual field extent in very young children.
Delaney SM; Dobson V; Mohan KM; Harvey EM
Optom Vis Sci; 2001 Nov; 78(11):846-52. PubMed ID: 11763259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Uniocular and binocular fields of rotation measures: Octopus versus Goldmann.
Rowe FJ; Hanif S
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2011 Jun; 249(6):909-19. PubMed ID: 21243371
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Functional constriction of the ocular motor field: description and preliminary evaluation of a new technique to help distinguish organic from nonorganic visual field loss.
Ali N
J Neuroophthalmol; 2011 Jun; 31(2):131-4. PubMed ID: 21368668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Oculokinetic perimetry for the assessment of visual fields.
Clark BJ; Timms C; Franks WA
Arch Dis Child; 1990 Apr; 65(4):432-4. PubMed ID: 2346336
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of an automated confrontation testing device versus finger counting in the detection of field loss.
Bass SJ; Cooper J; Feldman J; Horn D
Optometry; 2007 Aug; 78(8):390-5. PubMed ID: 17662927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [First experience with the Heidelberg Edge Perimeter® on patients with ocular hypertension and preperimetric glaucoma].
Hasler S; Stürmer J
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 2012 Apr; 229(4):319-22. PubMed ID: 22495996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
