1. Quigley HA, Addicks EM, Green WR. Optic nerve damage in human glaucoma. III:quantitative correlation of nerve fiber loss and visual field defect in glaucoma, ischemic neuropathy, papilledema, and toxic neuropathy. Arch Ophthalmol. 1982; 100:135–46.
2. Quigley HA, Dunkelberger GR, Green WR. Retinal ganglion cell atrophy correlated with automated perimetry in human eyes with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1989; 107:453–64.
Article
3. Sommer A, Katz J, Quigley HA, et al. Clinically detectable nerve fiber atrophy precedes the onset of glaucomatous field loss. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991; 109:77–83.
Article
4. Bagga H, Feuer WJ, Greenfield DS. Detection of psychophysical and structural injury in eyes with glaucomatous optic neuropathy and normal standard automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006; 124:169–76.
Article
5. Mardin CY, Horn FK, Jonas JB, et al. Preperimetric glaucoma diagnosis by confocal scanning laser tomography of optic disc. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999; 83:29–304.
6. Hart WM, Becker B. The onset and evolution of glaucomatous visual field defects. Ophthalmology. 1982; 89:268–79.
Article
7. Drance SM. The early field defects in glaucoma. Invest aberrations. 1969; 8:84–91.
8. Armaly MF. Visual field defects in early open-angle glaucoma. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1971; 69:147–62.
9. Henson DB, Artes PH, Chauhan BC. Diffuse loss of sensitivity in early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999; 40:3147–51.
10. Anderson DR. Automated static perimetry. 1st ed.St. Louis: Mosby;1992. p. 80.
11. Johnson CA, Adams AJ, Casson EJ, Brandt JD. Blue-on-yellow perimetry can predict the development of glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993; 111:645–50.
Article
12. Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Frequency doubling technology perimetryabnormalities as predictors of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004; 137:863–71.
13. Bayer AU, Erb C. Short wavelength automated perimetry, frequency doubling technology perimetry, and pattern electroretinography for prediction of progressive glaucomatous standard visual field defects. Ophthalmology. 2002; 109:1009–17.
Article
14. Ferreras A, Polo V, Larrosa JM. Can frequency-doubling technology and short-wavelength automated perimetries detect visual field defects before standard automated perimetry in patients with preperimetric glaucoma? J Glaucoma. 2007; 16:372–83.
Article
15. Bengtsson B, Lindgren A, Heijl A, et al. Perimetric probability maps to separate change caused by glaucoma from that caused by cataract. Acta Ophthalmol. 1997; 75:184–8.
Article
16. Åsman P, Heijl A. Glaucoma hemifield test: automated visual field evaluation. Arch Ophthalmol. 1992; 110:812–9.
17. Garway-Heath DF, Poinoosawmy D, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Mapping the visual field to the optic disc in normal tension glaucoma eyes. Ophthalmology. 2000; 107:1809–15.
18. Airaksinen PJ, Drance SM, Douglas GR, et al. Diffuse and localized nerve fiber loss in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1984; 98:566–71.
Article
19. Sommer A, Katz J, Quigley HA, et al. Clinically detectable nerve fiber atrophy precedes the onset of glaucomatous field loss. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991; 109:77–83.
Article
20. Johnson CA, Sample PA, Zangwill LM, et al. Structure and Function Evaluation(SAFE):II. Comparison of optic disc and visual field characteristics Am J Ophthalmol. 2003; 135:148–54.
21. Choplin NT, Lundy DC, Dreher AW. Differentiating patient with glaucoma from glaucoma suspects and normal subjects by nerve fiber layer assessment with scanning laser polarimetry. aberrationsogy. 1998; 105:2068–76.
22. Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. 2. Visual field test scoring and reliability. Ophthalmology. 1994; 101:1445–55.
23. Musch DC, Lichter PR, Guire KE, et al. The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: study design, methods, and baseline characteristics of enrolled patients. Ophthalmology. 1999; 106:653–62.
Article
24. Artes PD, Nocolela MT, LeBlanc RP, Chauhan BC. Visual field progression in glaucoma: total versus pattern deviation analyses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005; 46:4600–6.
Article
25. Asman P, Wild JM, Heijl A. Appearance of the pattern deviation map as a function of change in area of localized field loss. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004; 45:3099–106.
26. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA, Fingeret M, et al. Characteristics of the normative database for the Humphrey matrix perimeter. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005; 46:1540–8.
Article
27. Haymes SA, Hutchison DM, McCormick TA, et al. aberrations visual field progression with frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in a longitudinal prospective study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005; 46:547–54.
28. Leeprechanon N, Giangiacomo A, Fontana H, et al. Frequencydobling perimetry: comparison with standard automated perimetry to detect glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007; 143:263–71.
29. Cho CH, Kee CW. Association of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness measured by optical coherence tomography and automatic perimetry. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2002; 43:1032–9.
30. Kim TW, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, et al. Retinal nerve fiber layer damage as assessed by optical coherence tomography in eyes with a visual field defect detected by frequency doubling technology perimetry but not by standard automated perimetry. aberrationsogy. 2007; 114:1053–7.