116 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27760271)
1. Spatial Interpolation Enables Normative Data Comparison in Gaze-Contingent Microperimetry.
Denniss J; Astle AT
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2016 Oct; 57(13):5449-5456. PubMed ID: 27760271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Central perimetric sensitivity estimates are directly influenced by the fixation target.
Denniss J; Astle AT
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2016 Jul; 36(4):453-8. PubMed ID: 27146101
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Standard Automated Perimetry: Determining Spatial Summation and Its Effect on Contrast Sensitivity Across the Visual Field.
Khuu SK; Kalloniatis M
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2015 Jun; 56(6):3565-76. PubMed ID: 26047043
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Differences in the Relation Between Perimetric Sensitivity and Variability Between Locations Across the Visual Field.
Gardiner SK
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2018 Jul; 59(8):3667-3674. PubMed ID: 30029253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Fundus perimetry with the Micro Perimeter 1 in normal individuals: comparison with conventional threshold perimetry.
Springer C; Bültmann S; Völcker HE; Rohrschneider K
Ophthalmology; 2005 May; 112(5):848-54. PubMed ID: 15878065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The effect of refractive correction on automated perimetric thresholds.
Weinreb RN; Perlman JP
Am J Ophthalmol; 1986 Jun; 101(6):706-9. PubMed ID: 3717255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Properties of Visual Field Defects Around the Monocular Preferred Retinal Locus in Age-Related Macular Degeneration.
Denniss J; Baggaley HC; Brown GM; Rubin GS; Astle AT
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2017 May; 58(5):2652-2658. PubMed ID: 28524928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Do Additional Testing Locations Improve the Detection of Macular Perimetric Defects in Glaucoma?
Montesano G; McKendrick AM; Turpin A; Brusini P; Oddone F; Fogagnolo P; Perdicchi A; Johnson CA; Lanzetta P; Rossetti LM; Garway-Heath DF; Crabb DP
Ophthalmology; 2021 Dec; 128(12):1722-1735. PubMed ID: 34153384
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effect of Restricting Perimetry Testing Algorithms to Reliable Sensitivities on Test-Retest Variability.
Gardiner SK; Mansberger SL
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2016 Oct; 57(13):5631-5636. PubMed ID: 27784065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Feasibility of Macular Integrity Assessment (MAIA) Microperimetry in Children: Sensitivity, Reliability, and Fixation Stability in Healthy Observers.
Jones PR; Yasoubi N; Nardini M; Rubin GS
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2016 Nov; 57(14):6349-6359. PubMed ID: 27898980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparing the Structure-Function Relationship at the Macula With Standard Automated Perimetry and Microperimetry.
Rao HL; Januwada M; Hussain RS; Pillutla LN; Begum VU; Chaitanya A; Senthil S; Garudadri CS
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2015 Dec; 56(13):8063-8. PubMed ID: 26720457
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison between Tendency-Oriented Perimetry (TOP) and octopus threshold perimetry.
Morales J; Weitzman ML; González de la Rosa M
Ophthalmology; 2000 Jan; 107(1):134-42. PubMed ID: 10647732
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Neutralizing Peripheral Refraction Eliminates Refractive Scotomata in Tilted Disc Syndrome.
Phu J; Wang H; Miao S; Zhou L; Khuu SK; Kalloniatis M
Optom Vis Sci; 2018 Oct; 95(10):959-970. PubMed ID: 30247238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Equating spatial summation in visual field testing reveals greater loss in optic nerve disease.
Kalloniatis M; Khuu SK
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2016 Jul; 36(4):439-52. PubMed ID: 27197562
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effect of a variability-adjusted algorithm on the efficiency of perimetric testing.
Gardiner SK
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2014 May; 55(5):2983-92. PubMed ID: 24713484
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Central visual field sensitivity data from microperimetry with spatially dense sampling.
Astle AT; Ali I; Denniss J
Data Brief; 2016 Dec; 9():673-675. PubMed ID: 27790630
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of long-term variability for standard and short-wavelength automated perimetry in stable glaucoma patients.
Blumenthal EZ; Sample PA; Zangwill L; Lee AC; Kono Y; Weinreb RN
Am J Ophthalmol; 2000 Mar; 129(3):309-13. PubMed ID: 10704545
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The relationship of visual threshold and reaction time to visual field eccentricity with conventional automated perimetry.
Wall M; Kutzko KE; Chauhan BC
Vision Res; 2002 Mar; 42(6):781-7. PubMed ID: 11888543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Size threshold perimetry performs as well as conventional automated perimetry with stimulus sizes III, V, and VI for glaucomatous loss.
Wall M; Doyle CK; Eden T; Zamba KD; Johnson CA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2013 Jun; 54(6):3975-83. PubMed ID: 23633660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Discordance of Disc-Fovea Raphe Angles Determined by Optical Coherence Tomography and MP-3 Microperimetry in Eyes With a Glaucomatous Hemifield Defect.
Mori S; Kurimoto T; Kanamori A; Sakamoto M; Ueda K; Yamada-Nakanishi Y; Nakamura M
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2019 Apr; 60(5):1403-1411. PubMed ID: 30943288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
