1. Mavilio A, Scrimieri F, Errico D. Can variability of pattern ERG signal help to detect retinal ganglion cells dysfunction in glaucomatous eyes. Biomed Res Int. 2015; 2015:571314.
Article
2. Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006; 90:262–267.
Article
3. Tatham AJ, Weinreb RN, Medeiros FA. Strategies for improving early detection of glaucoma: the combined structure-function index. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014; 8:611–621.
4. Gardiner SK, Johnson CA, Demirel S. The effect of test variability on the structure-function relationship in early glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2012; 250:1851–1861.
Article
5. Harwerth RS, Carter-Dawson L, Shen F, et al. Ganglion cell losses underlying visual field defects from experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999; 40:2242–2250.
6. Kerrigan-Baumrind LA, Quigley HA, Pease ME, et al. Number of ganglion cells in glaucoma eyes compared with threshold visual field tests in the same persons. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000; 41:741–748.
7. Gillespie BW, Musch DC, Guire KE, et al. The collaborative initial glaucoma treatment study: baseline visual field and test-retest variability. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003; 44:2613–2620.
Article
8. Artes PH, Hutchison DM, Nicolela MT, et al. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005; 46:2451–2457.
Article
9. Chauhan BC, Johnson CA. Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999; 40:648–656.
10. Heijl A, Lindgren A, Lindgren G. Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields. Am J Ophthalmol. 1989; 108:130–135.
Article
11. Werner EB, Petrig B, Krupin T, Bishop KI. Variability of automated visual fields in clinically stable glaucoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1989; 30:1083–1089.
12. Osborne NN, Wood JP, Chidlow G, et al. Ganglion cell death in glaucoma: what do we really know? Br J Ophthalmol. 1999; 83:980–986.
Article
13. Spry PG, Johnson CA. Identification of progressive glaucomatous visual field loss. Surv Ophthalmol. 2002; 47:158–173.
Article
14. Barde MP, Barde PJ. What to use to express the variability of data: Standard deviation or standard error of mean? Perspect Clin Res. 2012; 3:113.
Article
15. Flammer J, Drance SM, Fankhauser F, Augustiny L. Differential light threshold in automated static perimetry. Factors influencing short-term fluctuation. Arch Ophthalmol. 1984; 102:876–879.
16. Hutchings N, Wild JM, Hussey MK, et al. The long-term fluctuation of the visual field in stable glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000; 41:3429–3436.
17. Johnson CA, Adams AJ, Casson EJ, Brandt JD. Progression of early glaucomatous visual field loss as detected by blue-on-yellow and standard white-on-white automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993; 111:651–656.
Article
18. Shabana N, Cornilleau Pérès V, Carkeet A, Chew PT. Motion perception in glaucoma patients: a review. Surv Ophthalmol. 2003; 48:92–106.
19. Tatham AJ, Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Weinreb RN. Strategies to improve early diagnosis in glaucoma. Prog Brain Res. 2015; 221:103–133.
Article
20. Dacey DM, Lee BB. The ‘blue-on’ opponent pathway in primate retina originates from a distinct bistratified ganglion cell type. Nature. 1994; 367:731–735.
Article
21. Sample PA, Medeiros FA, Racette L, et al. Identifying glaucomatous vision loss with visual-function-specific perimetry in the diagnostic innovations in glaucoma study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006; 47:3381–3389.
Article
22. Horn FK, Tornow RP, Jünemann AG, et al. Perimetric measurements with flicker-defined form stimulation in comparison with conventional perimetry and retinal nerve fiber measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014; 55:2317–2323.
Article
23. Lamparter J, Russell RA, Schulze A, et al. Structure-function relationship between FDF, FDT, SAP, and scanning laser ophthalmoscopy in glaucoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53:7553–7559.
Article
24. Mulak M, Szumny D, Sieja-Bujewska A, Kubrak M. Heidelberg edge perimeter employment in glaucoma diagnosis--preliminary report. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2012; 21:665–670.
25. Pfeiffer N, Bach M. The pattern-electroretinogram in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Ger J Ophthalmol. 1992; 1:35–40.
26. Bode SF, Jehle T, Bach M. Pattern electroretinogram in glaucoma suspects: new findings from a longitudinal study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011; 52:4300–4306.
Article
27. Wall M, Woodward KR, Doyle CK, Artes PH. Repeatability of automated perimetry: a comparison between standard automated perimetry with stimulus size III and V, matrix, and motion perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009; 50:974–979.
Article
28. Anderson JS, Lampl I, Gillespie DC, Ferster D. The contribution of noise to contrast invariance of orientation tuning in cat visual cortex. Science. 2000; 290:1968–1972.
Article
29. Levine MW. Variability of responses to sinusoidal modulation. Vis Neurosci. 1994; 11:155–163.
Article
30. Redmond T, Garway-Heath DF, Zlatkova MB, Anderson RS. Sensitivity loss in early glaucoma can be mapped to an enlargement of the area of complete spatial summation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010; 51:6540–6548.
Article
31. Leske MC, Wu SY, Hennis A, et al. Risk factors for incident open-angle glaucoma: the Barbados Eye Studies. Ophthalmology. 2008; 115:85–93.
32. Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002; 120:701–713. discussion 829-30.
33. Miglior S, Zeyen T, Pfeiffer N, et al. Results of the European Glaucoma Prevention Study. Ophthalmology. 2005; 112:366–375.
Article