| Affiliation |
Glaucoma Services (AO), Aravind Eye Hospital, Pondicherry, India; Neuro-Ophthalmology Services (PS), Aravind Eye Hospital, Pondicherry, India; Alfaleus Technology Private Limited (SK), Jaipur, Rajasthan, India; Department of Biostatistics (RR), Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India; Indira Gandhi Govt. General Hospital and Post Graduate Institute (SN), Pondicherry, India; School of Electrical Engineering (PA), Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India; and Aravind Eye Hospital (RV), Pondicherry, India |
| References |
1. Kedar S, Ghate D, Corbett JJ. Visual fields in neuro-ophthalmology. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2011;59:103-109. 2. Johnson LN, Baloh FG. The accuracy of confrontation visual field test in comparison with automated perimetry. J Natl Med Assoc. 1991;83:895-898. 3. Mees L, Upadhyaya S, Kumar P, Kotawala S, Haran S, Rajasekar S, Friedman DS, Venkatesh R. Validation of a head-mounted virtual reality visual field screening device. J Glaucoma. 2020;29:86-91. 4. Prager AJ, Kang JM, Tanna AP. Advances in perimetry for glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2021;32:92-97. 5. Ong EL, Zheng Y, Aung T, Tan L, Cheng CY, Wong TY, How A. Performance of the Moorfields motion displacement test for identifying eyes with glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:88-92. 6. Stapelfeldt J, Kucur SS, Huber N, Höhn R, Sznitman R. Virtual reality-based and conventional visual field examination comparison in healthy and glaucoma patients. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2021;10:10. 7. Pradhan ZS, Sircar T, Agrawal H, Rao HL, Bopardikar A, Devi S, Tiwari VN. Comparison of the performance of a novel, smartphone-based, head-mounted perimeter (GearVision) with the Humphrey field analyzer. J Glaucoma. 2021;30:e146-e152. 8. Montelongo M, Gonzalez A, Morgenstern F, Donahue SP, Groth SL. A virtual reality-based automated perimeter, device, and pilot study. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2021;10:20. 9. Wroblewski D, Francis BA, Sadun A, Vakili G, Chopra V. Testing of visual field with virtual reality goggles in manual and visual grasp modes. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:206082. 10. Matsumoto C, Yamao S, Nomoto H, Takada S, Okuyama S, Kimura S, Yamanaka K, Aihara M, Shimomura Y. Visual field testing with head-mounted perimeter 'imo. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0161974. 11. Tsapakis S, Papaconstantinou D, Diagourtas A, Kandarakis S, Droutsas K, Andreanos K, Brouzas D. Home-based visual field test for glaucoma screening comparison with Humphrey perimeter. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018;12:2597-2606. 12. Ahmed Y, Pereira A, Bowden S, Shi RB, Li Y, Ahmed IIK, Arshinoff SA. Multicenter comparison of the Toronto portable perimeter with the Humphrey field analyzer: a pilot study. Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2022;5:146-159. 13. Nomoto H, Matsumoto C, Takada S, Hashimoto S, Arimura E, Okuyama S, Shimomura Y. Detectability of glaucomatous changes using SAP, FDT, flicker perimetry, and OCT. J Glaucoma. 2009;18:165-171. 14. Martin LM, Lindblom B, Gedda UK. Concordance between results of optic disc tomography and high-pass resolution perimetry in glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2000;9:28-33. 15. Lima VC, Prata TS, De Moraes CG, Kim J, Seiple W, Rosen RB, Liebmann JM, Ritch R. A comparison between microperimetry and standard achromatic perimetry of the central visual field in eyes with glaucomatous paracentral visual-field defects. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94:64-67. 16. Steven Houston SK, Weber ED, Koga SF, Newman SA. Rarebit perimetry for bedside testing: comparison with standard automated perimetry. J Neuroophthalmol. 2010;30:243-247. 17. Horn FK, Kremers J, Mardin CY, Jünemann AG, Adler W, Tornow RP. Flicker-defined form perimetry in glaucoma patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2015;253:447-455. |
