April 1993
Volume 34, Issue 5
Free
Articles  |   April 1993
Magnification perimetry.
Author Affiliations
  • K Latham
    Department of Vision Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
  • D Whitaker
    Department of Vision Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
  • J M Wild
    Department of Vision Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
  • D B Elliott
    Department of Vision Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 1993, Vol.34, 1691-1701. doi:
  • Views
  • PDF
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      K Latham, D Whitaker, J M Wild, D B Elliott; Magnification perimetry.. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 1993;34(5):1691-1701.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

PURPOSE: The authors used a method of spatial scaling to quantify the eccentricity-related decline in differential light sensitivity as a function of visual field meridian and age. METHODS: Differential light threshold at the fovea was measured in two groups of subjects of differing age (young mean age, 23.6 yr; standard deviation, 2.4 yr; elderly mean age, 69.6 yr; standard deviation, 6.2 yr) using a Goldmann size I stimulus moving across fixation at 1 degree/sec. With luminance kept constant, eccentricity thresholds for kinetic stimuli of increasing magnification were then measured. The results were analyzed in terms of the E2 value, which specifies the eccentricity at which the stimulus size must double to maintain performance equivalent to that at the fovea. RESULTS: For the young subjects, eccentricity thresholds increased linearly with an increase in stimulus diameter for most meridians. E2 varied between 5-12 degrees, depending on the meridian, and showed the same meridional trend as that of retinal ganglion cell distribution, although the magnitudes of E2 were different. For the elderly subjects, the eccentricity thresholds increased in a nonlinear manner with the stimulus diameter. CONCLUSIONS: Further factors, such as spatial summation, must also determine the eccentricity dependence of the differential light threshold because ganglion cell density decreases at a much faster rate than the differential light threshold. The most marked effects of age on differential light sensitivity occur at the fovea and beyond 20 degrees in the peripheral field, with a relative sparing in the pericentral area.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×