Trobe J D, Acosta P C, Krischer J P, Trick G L
Ann Neurol. 1981 Jul;10(1):28-34. doi: 10.1002/ana.410100105.
The accuracy of a variety of finger and color confrontation tests in identifying chiasmal and optic nerve visual field defects was assessed in patients whose field defects had been established beforehand by a conventional achromatic kinetic technique on the Goldmann perimeter. Kinetic and static finger confrontation methods identified an average of 42% of the 28 chiasmal hemianopic defects. False negatives included eyes with hemianopias complete to the largest (V4e) Goldmann isopter. False positives (average, 15%) occurred in eyes containing nerve fiber bundle defects with borders that fell near the vertical fixational meridian. Kinetic and static color confrontation techniques were 78.6% sensitive to hemianopias. Accuracy did not differ significantly whether the red target was presented kinetically or statically against the tangent screen, projected on the Autoplot screen, or held in the examiner's hand without attention to background. False positives (average, 23%) were slightly greater than with finger confrontation methods and occurred not only in eyes with nerve fiber bundle defects but also in eyes with no defects in reference visual fields. Finger confrontation identified 11% or fewer of optic nerve field defects, while some color techniques detected as many as 31 1/3%. There were no false positives.
通过传统的戈德曼视野计上的消色差动态技术预先确定视野缺损的患者中，评估了各种手指和颜色对照试验在识别视交叉和视神经视野缺损方面的准确性。动态和静态手指对照方法平均识别出28例视交叉偏盲缺损中的42%。假阴性包括那些偏盲范围完整至最大（V4e）戈德曼等视线的眼睛。假阳性（平均15%）出现在边界靠近垂直注视子午线的神经纤维束缺损的眼睛中。动态和静态颜色对照技术对偏盲的敏感度为78.6%。无论红色目标是动态还是静态地呈现于切线屏上、投射在自动绘图屏上，还是由检查者手持而不考虑背景，准确性均无显著差异。假阳性（平均23%）略高于手指对照方法，不仅出现在有神经纤维束缺损的眼睛中，也出现在参考视野无缺损的眼睛中。手指对照识别出的视神经视野缺损不到11%，而一些颜色对照技术检测出的比例高达31 1/3%。未出现假阳性。
