Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 206082, 10 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/206082
Research Article

Testing of Visual Field with Virtual Reality Goggles in Manual and Visual Grasp Modes

1BioFormatix, Inc., P.O. Box 721450, San Diego, CA 92172, USA
2Department of Ophthalmology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA
3Doheny Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA 91105, USA

Received 17 February 2014; Accepted 1 May 2014; Published 23 June 2014

Academic Editor: Sergio Claudio Saccà

Copyright © 2014 Dariusz Wroblewski et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. K. Zadnik, The Ocular Examination. Measurements and Findings, WB Saunders, Philadelphia, Pa, USA, 1997.
  2. D. R. Anderson and V. M. Patella, Automated Static Perimetry, Mosby, St. Louis, Mo, USA, 2nd edition, 1999.
  3. M. F. Delgado, N. T. A. Nguyen, T. A. Cox et al., “Automated perimetry: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology,” Ophthalmology, vol. 109, no. 12, pp. 2362–2374, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. A. M. McKendrick, “Recent developments in perimetry: test stimuli and procedures,” Clinical and Experimental Optometry, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 73–80, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. M. Iester, M. Altieri, P. Vittone, G. Calabria, M. Zingirian, and C. E. Traverso, “Detection of glaucomatous visual field defect by nonconventional perimetry,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 135, no. 1, pp. 35–39, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. P. A. Sample, “Short-wavelength automated perimetry: it's role in the clinic and for understanding ganglion cell function,” Progress in Retinal and Eye Research, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 369–383, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. B. Bengtsson and A. Heijl, “False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability?” Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 2201–2204, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. R. J. Boeglin, J. Caprioli, and M. Zulauf, “Long-term fluctuation of the visual field in glaucoma,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 113, no. 4, pp. 396–400, 1992. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. E. B. Werner, B. Petrig, T. Krupin, and K. I. Bishop, “Variability of automated visual fields in clinically stable glaucoma patients,” Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 1083–1089, 1989. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. A. D. C. Chan, M. Eizenman, J. Flanagan, and G. Trope, “Head-mounted perimetry,” in Vision Science and Its Applications, OSA Technical Digest Series, paper MB1, Optical Society of America, Washington, DC, USA, 1999. View at Google Scholar
  11. D. A. Hollander, N. J. Volpe, M. L. Moster et al., “Use of a portable head mounted perimetry system to assess bedside visual fields,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 84, no. 10, pp. 1185–1190, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. G. E. Trope, M. Eizenman, and E. Coyle, “Eye movement perimetry in glaucoma,” Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 197–199, 1989. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. W. E. Howard and O. F. Prache, “Microdisplays based upon organic light-emitting diodes,” IBM Journal of Research and Development, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 115–127, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. D. Wroblewski, B. A. Francis, V. Chopra et al., “Glaucoma detection and evaluation through pattern recognition in standard automated perimetry data,” Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, vol. 247, no. 11, pp. 1517–1530, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. M. Wall, K. R. Woodward, C. K. Doyle, and P. H. Artes, “Repeatability of automated perimetry: a comparison between standard automated perimetry with stimulus size III and V, matrix, and motion perimetry,” Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 974–979, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. P. H. Artes, A. Iwase, Y. Ohno, Y. Kitazawa, and B. C. Chauhan, “Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, SITA standard, and SITA fast strategies,” Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 2654–2659, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. M. C. Westcott, D. F. Garway-Heath, F. W. Fitzke, D. Kamal, and R. A. Hitchings, “Use of high spatial resolution perimetry to identify scotomata not apparent with conventional perimetry in the nasal field of glaucomatous subjects,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 86, no. 7, pp. 761–766, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus