Skip to main content
Log in

The influence of stimulus size on perimetric detection of small scotomata

  • Clinical Investigations
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The influence of perimetric stimulus size on the detection of small scotomata was examined, and the blind spot was used as a paradigm of a small scotoma. A customized point pattern for perimetry was created on a Humphrey field analyzer. The point pattern had a density of 1.4° and was arranged in a grid in the area of the blind spot. Four normal persons were tested with full-threshold strategy in the points of this grid using Goldmann stimulus sizes ranging from I to V. The delimitation of the blind spot was found to depend strongly on stimulus size. For small stimulus sizes, the blind spot could be delimited as an absolute scotoma with almost sharp borders. However, with larger spot sizes a relative scotoma zone gradually developed, extending centrally from the borders of the blind spot. The central absolute scotoma component of the blind spot totally disappeared for the largest stimulus sizes. We could establish that some of these larger stimuli would be projected totally within the optic nerve head, if perfect imaging through the refractive media of the eye was assumed. We interpret our findings to be a result of light scattering in the refractive media of the eye, causing a blur to appear around the image of the light stimulus at the retinal plane. We conclude that perimetric resolution power is highly dependent on stimulus size. The smallest stimulus size possible should be used when dense stimulus patterns are used for perimetric detection of small scotomata.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adler FH (1959) Physiology of the Eye, 3rd edn. Mosby, St. Louis, p 447

    Google Scholar 

  2. Armaly MF (1969) The size and location of the normal blind spot. Arch Ophthalmol 81: 192–201

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Aulhorn E, Harms H (1972). Visual perimetry. In: Jameson D, Hurvich LM (eds) Handbook of sensory physiology, vol 7, part 4. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 102–145

    Google Scholar 

  4. Benedetto MD, Cyrlin MN (1985) The effect of blur upon static perimetric thresholds. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 42:563–567

    Google Scholar 

  5. Flammer J, Nagel G, Glowazki A (1981) Detection and definition of scotomata of the central visual field by computer methods. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 26:33–41

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gramer E, Kontić D, Krieglstein GK (1981) Die computerperimetrische Darstellung glaukomatöser Gesichtsfelddefekte in Abhängigkeit von der Stimulusgrösse. Ophthalmologica 183:162–167

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Le Grand Y (1937) Recherches sur la diffusion de la lumière dans l'oeil humain. Rev Opt Theor Instrum 8:241–266

    Google Scholar 

  8. Sloan LL (1961) Area and luminance of test object as variables in examination of the visual field by projection perimetry. Vision Res 1:121–138

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

The present study was supported by Mimi and Victor Larsen's Foundation and the John and Birthe Meyer Foundation

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bek, T., Lund-Andersen, H. The influence of stimulus size on perimetric detection of small scotomata. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 227, 531–534 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02169446

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02169446

Keywords

Navigation