首页> 外文OA文献 >Multisampling suprathreshold perimetry: A comparison with conventional suprathreshold and full-threshold strategies by computer simulation
【2h】

Multisampling suprathreshold perimetry: A comparison with conventional suprathreshold and full-threshold strategies by computer simulation

机译:多重采样超阈值视野检查:通过计算机模拟与传统超阈值和全阈值策略进行比较

摘要

PURPOSE. To compare a multisampling suprathreshold strategy with conventional suprathreshold and full-threshold strategies in detecting localized visual field defects and in quantifying the area of loss. METHODS. Probability theory was applied to examine various suprathreshold pass criteria (i.e., the number of stimuli that have to be seen for a test location to be classified as normal). A suprathreshold strategy that requires three seen or three missed stimuli per test location (multisampling suprathreshold) was selected for further investigation. Simulation was used to determine how the multisampling suprathreshold, conventional suprathreshold, and full-threshold strategies detect localized field loss. To determine the systematic error and variability in estimates of loss area, artificial fields were generated with clustered defects (0-25 field locations with 8- and 16-dB loss) and, for each condition, the number of test locations classified as defective (suprathreshold strategies) and with pattern deviation probability less than 5% (full-threshold strategy), was derived from 1000 simulated test results. RESULTS. The full-threshold and multisampling suprathreshold strategies had similar sensitivity to field loss. Both detected defects earlier than the conventional suprathreshold strategy. The pattern deviation probability analyses of full-threshold results underestimated the area of field loss. The conventional suprathreshold perimetry also underestimated the defect area. With multisampling suprathreshold perimetry, the estimates of defect area were less variable and exhibited lower systematic error. CONCLUSIONS. Multisampling suprathreshold paradigms may be a powerful alternative to other strategies of visual field testing. Clinical trials are needed to verify these findings.
机译:目的。在检测局部视野缺损和量化损失区域时,将多重采样的阈值上限策略与常规的阈值上限和全阈值策略进行比较。方法。应用概率论来检查各种阈上通过标准(即,将测试位置分类为正常位置必须看到的刺激次数)。选择了一个超阈值策略,每个测试位置需要三个可见刺激或三个缺失刺激(多重采样超阈值)进行进一步研究。仿真用于确定多采样超阈值,常规超阈值和全阈值策略如何检测局部场损耗。为了确定损失面积估算中的系统误差和变异性,生成了具有簇状缺陷的人工场(0-25场位置具有8dB和16dB的损失),并且对于每种情况,分类为缺陷的测试位置数(从1000个模拟测试结果得出,且模式偏差概率小于5%(全阈值策略)。结果。全阈值和多采样超阈值策略对场损失具有相似的敏感性。两者都比常规的超阈值策略更早地检测到缺陷。全阈值结果的模式偏差概率分析低估了场损失的面积。传统的阈上视野检查法也低估了缺损面积。使用多采样超阈值视野检查法,缺陷面积的估计值变化较小,并且系统误差较小。结论。多重采样阈上范例可能是视野测试其他策略的有力替代方案。需要临床试验来验证这些发现。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号