Cascairo M A, Stewart W C, Sutherland S E
Department of Ophthalmology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston 29425.
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1991;229(5):437-41. doi: 10.1007/BF00166306.
A total of 20 healthy individuals purposely missed an increasing number of individual catch trial questions (false positive or negative errors or fixation losses) when tested on the Humphrey Field Analyzer to determine the effect on the normal visual field. As determined by Statpac, the global indices and probability maps became significantly altered from those for the control fields at a prevalence of 20% for false negatives and 33% for fixation losses and false positives. However, the perimeter's recorded prevalence of missed catch trials showed a wide distribution from the percentage purposely missed. A high prevalence of missed catch trials was also indicated by a greater than normal mean defect and number of questions asked. This study suggests that although the number of missed catch trials are often recorded inaccurately, they help to identify unreliable normal visual fields, as do the mean defect and the number of questions asked.
共有20名健康个体在使用汉弗莱视野分析仪进行测试时,故意漏答越来越多的单个捕捉试验问题(假阳性或阴性错误或注视丢失),以确定对正常视野的影响。根据Statpac的测定,当假阴性患病率为20%、注视丢失以及假阳性患病率为33%时,全局指数和概率图与对照视野相比发生了显著变化。然而,视野计记录的漏答捕捉试验的患病率与故意漏答的百分比相比分布较广。平均缺损大于正常以及提问数量增多也表明漏答捕捉试验的患病率较高。这项研究表明,虽然漏答捕捉试验的数量常常记录不准确,但它们与平均缺损和提问数量一样,有助于识别不可靠的正常视野。