May 2007
Volume 48, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2007
Repeatability of Automated Perimetry: A Comparison of Perimetric Tests Using Stimulus Size III, Size V, Matrix and Motion
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • M. Wall
    Department of Ophthalmology, Univ of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa
    Veterans Administration Hospital, Iowa City, Iowa
  • C. F. Brito
    Department of Psychology, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois
  • K. R. Woodward
    Veterans Administration Hospital, Iowa City, Iowa
  • C. K. Doyle
    Veterans Administration Hospital, Iowa City, Iowa
  • P. Artes
    Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships M. Wall, None; C.F. Brito, None; K.R. Woodward, None; C.K. Doyle, None; P. Artes, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support VA Merit Review
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2007, Vol.48, 1619. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      M. Wall, C. F. Brito, K. R. Woodward, C. K. Doyle, P. Artes; Repeatability of Automated Perimetry: A Comparison of Perimetric Tests Using Stimulus Size III, Size V, Matrix and Motion. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2007;48(13):1619. doi:

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Standard perimetry is limited by a marked increase in variability with decreasing sensitivity. To evaluate this issue, we investigated the retest variability of four perimetry tests: Standard Automated Perimetry size III (SAP III), SAP size V (SAP V), Matrix (FDT II) and Motion Perimetry.


We tested one eye of 120 glaucoma patients with these four perimetric tests on the same day and retested 1-8 weeks later. The tests’ scales were adjusted to make their dynamic ranges similar. Point-wise limits of test-retest variability were then established from the empirical 5th and 95th percentiles of the distribution of retest values, stratified by the value of at the first test (Fig). The log differences between test and retest values were linearly regressed onto the averages of the two tests to determine the relationship between variability and sensitivity.


With SAP III, variability as shown by the test-retest intervals increased greatly with reduced sensitivity (Fig). Corresponding increases with SAP V, Matrix, and Motion perimetry were considerably smaller (p<0.001). With SAP III, sensitivity explained 22% of the test-retest variability (r2), while corresponding figures for SAP V, Matrix and Motion perimetry were 12%, 2%, and 2%, respectively.


Variability of Matrix and Motion perimetry does not increase substantially as sensitivity decreases. Increased sampling with the larger stimuli of these techniques is the likely basis for this finding. These properties may make these stimuli excellent candidates for early detection of visual field progression.  

Keywords: perimetry • visual fields 

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.