Visual Field Distribution Matrix

Agreement of visual field progression detected by Matrix frequency-doubling technology FTD perimetry and standard automated perimetry SAP using the more-conservative criteria A and the less-conservative criteria B. within 95 normal distribution, borderline within 1-5 of normal distribution, or outside normal limits below the

Few studies on visual field testing in the pediatric population have been published.4,5,6,7,8 The aim of the present study was to compare visual field test results in healthy children obtained via FDT Matrix and standard automated perimetry SAP and to evaluate the correlations between the FDT Matrix and SAP 24-2 threshold programs.

Matrix allows higher resolution of visual field defects. In fact, Matrix appears to be more sensitive than automated perimetry and the SWAP visual field test that's administered on the Humphrey Field Visual Analyzer II. Also, it tests slightly different parts and functions of the ganglion cells than the original FDT instrument.

The Humphrey MATRIX Welch Allyn, Skaneateles Falls, NY, USA and Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA, USA is a second-generation FDT perimeter.5-7 MATRIX has a smaller stimulus size 5 ,the test permits 69 visual field locations similar to 76 points on Humphrey field analyzer HFA 30-2 program, thus providing greater detail of spatial

Visual fields were measured Matrix 30-2, 24-2, 10-2 and Macula patterns in gt275 subjects judged to be normal by a battery of clinical procedures. 20 to model the expected distribution of sensitivities, thereby assuming that nothing is known about the final estimate of visual sensitivity for a given subject, save that it is between 0 dB

Visual Fields. DAVID P . CRABB. to the fovea. A visual field defect is any departure from the arcuate distribution of glaucomatous visual field loss that still bears his name. In the early 20th century Rnne used a fixed matrix of test points by varying the stimulus inten-sity until each test location is just seen this point is known

Most reports that compare the results for the Humphrey Matrix with those of the Humphrey Field Analyzer Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. indicate that the two visual field techniques produce highly similar results. 9-15 Most studies have shown good-to-excellent clinical performance and strong correlations with standard automated perimetry for the

Purpose To compare visual field VF defects found by Swedish interactive thresholding Algorithm SITA perimetry and Matrix perimetry, a new VF device that utilizes frequency doubling technology in a 24-2 test pattern. Design Prospective cross-sectional study. Participants Fifty eyes from 50 subjects with SITA field defects were recruited for an observational study.

The Humphrey Matrix visual field instrument 21 presents FDT stimuli on a cathode ray tube with a background luminance of 100 cdm 2. We used the test pattern option in which stimuli 5 degrees in size are displayed at 55 locations in a pattern similar to the familiar 24-2 pattern of SAP. As also observed by Patel et al., 32 HFA II SITA has

Visual field defects were defined as clusters of 3 adjacent points with Plt5 on the pattern deviation plot or 2 adjacent points with Plt1. If both eyes were eligible for the study, the eye with more advanced VF abnormality was selected. Although both devices provide similar distribution of the threshold values, Matrix quotutilized