Keltner, J. L., Johnson, C. A. & Lewis, R. A. Quantitative office perimetry. Ophthalmology 92(7), 862–872 (1985).
Bengtsson, B., Heijl, A. & Olsson, J. Evaluation of a new threshold visual field strategy, SITA, in normal subjects. Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 76(2), 165–169 (1998).
Bengtsson, B. & Heijl, A. Evaluation of a new perimetric threshold strategy, SITA, in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 76(3), 268–272 (1998).
Heijl, A. & Drance, S. M. Changes in differential threshold in patients with glaucoma during prolonged perimetry. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 67, 512–516 (1983).
Hudson, C., Wild, J. M. & O’Neill, E. C. Fatigue effects during a single session of automated static threshold perimetry. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 35, 268–280 (1994).
Johnson, C. A., Adams, C. W. & Lewis, R. A. Fatigue effects in automated perimetry. Appl. Opt. 27, 1030–1037 (1988).
Olsson, J., Bengtsson, B., Heijl, A. & Rootzen, H. An improved method to estimate frequency of false positive answers in computerized perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 75(2), 181–183 (1997).
Heijl, A. & Krakau, C. E. An automatic perimeter for glaucoma visual field screening and control. Construction and clinical cases. Albert Von Grafes Arch. Klin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 197(1), 13–23 (1975).
Olsson, J. & Rootzen, H. An image model for quantal response analysis in perimetry. Scand. J. Stat. 8, 375–387 (1994).
Chong, L. X., McKendrick, A. M., Ganeshrao, S. B. & Turpin, A. Customized, automated stimulus location choice for assessment of visual field defects introduction of goanna. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 55, 3265–3274 (2014).
Rubinstein, N. J., McKendrick, A. M. & Turpin, A. Incorporating spatial models in visual field test procedures. Transl. Vis. Sci. Technol. 5, 7 (2016).
Gardiner, S. K., Swanson, W. H., Goren, D., Mansberger, S. L. & Derirel, S. Assessment of the relaiability of standard automated perimetry in regions of glaucomatous damage. Ophthalmology 121(7), 1359–1369 (2014).
Numata, T. et al. Exploring test-retest variability using high-resolution perimetry. Transl. Vis. Sci. Technol. 6(5), 8 (2017).
Heijl, A. & Krakau, C. E. An automated static perimeter, design and pilot study. Acta Ophtalmol. (Copenh.) 53(3), 293–310 (1975).
Frankhauser, F., Spahr, J. & Babie, H. Some aspects of the automation of perimetry. Surv. Ophthalmol. 22(2), 131–141 (1977).
Anderson, D. R. & Patella, V. M. (eds) Automated Static Perimetry (Mosby, 1999).
Yohannan, J. et al. Evidence-based criteria for assessment of visual field reliability. Ophthalmology 124(11), 1612–1620 (2017).
Katz, J. & Sommer, A. Reliability index of automated perimetric test. Arch. Ophthalmol. 106(9), 1252–1254 (1988).
Bengtsson, B. & Heijl, A. False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: Indicators pf patient performance or test reliability?. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vsi. Sci. 41(8), 2201–2204 (2000).
Matsumoto, C. et al. Visual field testing with head mounted perimeter ‘imo’. PLoS ONE 11(8), e0161974 (2016).
Kimura, T., Nomoto, H. & Matsumoto, C. Comparison of head-mounted perimeter (imo) and humphrey field analyzer. Clin. Ophthalmol. 13, 501–513 (2019).
Sakamoto, M. et al. Agreement in the detection of chiasmal and postchiasmal visual field defects between imo binocular random single-eye test and Humphrey monocular test. Jpn. J. Ophthalmol. 66(5), 413–424 (2022).
Gardiner, S. K., Crabb, D. P., Fitzke, F. W. & Hitchings, R. A. Reducing noise in suspected glaucomatous visual fields by using a new spatial filter. Vis. Res. 44(8), 839–848 (2004).
Lamparter, J. et al. The influence of intersubject variability in ocular anatomical variables on the mapping of retinal locations to the retinal nerve fiber layer and optic nerve head. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vsi. Sci. 54, 6074–6082 (2013).
Turpin, A., Sampson, G. P. & McKendrick, A. M. Combining ganglion cell topology and data of patients with glaucoma to determine a structure-function map. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vsi. Sci. 50, 3249–3256 (2009).
Chauhan, B. C. & Burgoyne, C. F. From clinical examination of the optic disc to clinical assessment of the optic nerve head: A paradigm change. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 156, 218–227 (2013).
King-Smith, P. E., Grigsby, S. S., Vingrys, A. J., Benes, S. C. & Supowit, A. Efficient and unbiased modifications of the QUEST threshold method: Theory, simulations, experimental evaluation and practical implementation. Vis. Res. 34(7), 885–912 (1994).
Bryan, S. R., Vermeer, K. A., Eilers, P. H., Lemij, H. G. & Lesaffre, E. M. Robust and censored modeling and prediction of progression in glaucomatous visual fields. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 54, 6694–6700 (2013).
Erler, N. S. et al. Optimizing structure–function relationship by maximizing correspondence between glaucomatous visual fields and mathematical retinal nerve fiber models optimization of structural RNFL models on visual fields. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 55, 2350–2357 (2014).
Henson, D. B., Chaudry, S., Artes, P. H., Faragher, E. B. & Ansons, A. Response variability in the visual field: Comparison of optic neuritis, glaucoma, ocular hypertension, and normal eyes. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 41, 417–421 (2000).