These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
172 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9645724)
21. Integrated visual fields: a new approach to measuring the binocular field of view and visual disability. Crabb DP; Viswanathan AC Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2005 Mar; 243(3):210-6. PubMed ID: 15806374 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Detection of visual dysfunction in optic atrophy by functional magnetic resonance imaging during monocular visual stimulation. Miki A; Nakajima T; Takagi M; Shirakashi M; Abe H Am J Ophthalmol; 1996 Sep; 122(3):404-15. PubMed ID: 8794713 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Frequency doubling technology perimetry for detection of glaucomatous visual field loss. Cello KE; Nelson-Quigg JM; Johnson CA Am J Ophthalmol; 2000 Mar; 129(3):314-22. PubMed ID: 10704546 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. The effective dynamic ranges of standard automated perimetry sizes III and V and motion and matrix perimetry. Wall M; Woodward KR; Doyle CK; Zamba G Arch Ophthalmol; 2010 May; 128(5):570-6. PubMed ID: 20457977 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. A new visual field test in empty sella syndrome: rarebit perimetry. Yavas GF; Küsbeci T; Eser O; Ermis SS; Coşar M; Oztürk F Eur J Ophthalmol; 2008; 18(4):628-32. PubMed ID: 18609487 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Scanning laser polarimetry of the retinal nerve fiber layer in perimetrically unaffected eyes of glaucoma patients. Reus NJ; Lemij HG Ophthalmology; 2004 Dec; 111(12):2199-203. PubMed ID: 15582074 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Variability in monocular and binocular fixation during standard automated perimetry. Hirasawa K; Kobayashi K; Shibamoto A; Tobari H; Fukuda Y; Shoji N PLoS One; 2018; 13(11):e0207517. PubMed ID: 30462706 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Dichoptic stimulation improves detection of glaucoma with multifocal visual evoked potentials. Arvind H; Klistorner A; Graham S; Grigg J; Goldberg I; Klistorner A; Billson FA Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2007 Oct; 48(10):4590-6. PubMed ID: 17898282 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects. Chauhan BC; Johnson CA Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1999 Mar; 40(3):648-56. PubMed ID: 10067968 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. Comparison of central and peripheral visual field properties in the optic neuritis treatment trial. Keltner JL; Johnson CA; Spurr JO; Beck RW Am J Ophthalmol; 1999 Nov; 128(5):543-53. PubMed ID: 10577521 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. Artes PH; Hutchison DM; Nicolela MT; LeBlanc RP; Chauhan BC Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Jul; 46(7):2451-7. PubMed ID: 15980235 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Comparison of 30-2 Standard and Fast programs of Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm of Humphrey Field Analyzer for perimetry in patients with intracranial tumors. Singh MD; Jain K Indian J Ophthalmol; 2017 Nov; 65(11):1198-1202. PubMed ID: 29133651 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Patients have two eyes!: binocular versus better eye visual field indices. Asaoka R; Crabb DP; Yamashita T; Russell RA; Wang YX; Garway-Heath DF Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2011 Sep; 52(9):7007-11. PubMed ID: 21810985 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Effect of eye testing order on automated perimetry results using the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm standard 24-2. Barkana Y; Gerber Y; Mora R; Liebmann JM; Ritch R Arch Ophthalmol; 2006 Jun; 124(6):781-4. PubMed ID: 16769830 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Measurement error of visual field tests in glaucoma. Spry PG; Johnson CA; McKendrick AM; Turpin A Br J Ophthalmol; 2003 Jan; 87(1):107-12. PubMed ID: 12488273 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. A new pattern electroretinogram paradigm evaluated in terms of user friendliness and agreement with perimetry. Yang A; Swanson WH Ophthalmology; 2007 Apr; 114(4):671-9. PubMed ID: 17398319 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Using motion perimetry to detect visual field defects in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension: a comparison with conventional automated perimetry. Wall M; Montgomery EB Neurology; 1995 Jun; 45(6):1169-75. PubMed ID: 7783884 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Flicker-defined form perimetry in glaucoma patients. Horn FK; Kremers J; Mardin CY; Jünemann AG; Adler W; Tornow RP Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2015 Mar; 253(3):447-55. PubMed ID: 25511293 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Contrast sensitivity in the 'good eye' of adult patients with severe impairment in the other eye. Giannakopoulou T; Plainis S; Pallikaris IG; Tsilimbaris MK Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2013 Mar; 33(2):150-6. PubMed ID: 23347379 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]