ライフサイエンスコーパス: visual field

1 ally detects a prey object in its peripheral visual field.

2 oding any given feature uniformly across the visual field.

3 terior and medio-lateral oscillations of the visual field.

4 ges in the contralateral but not ipsilateral visual field.

5 wed within the lower (rather than the upper) visual field.

6 or a large proportion of the flux across the visual field.

7 et bias for upward-nasal motion in the upper visual field.

8 of scotomas involving the inferior temporal visual field.

9 ots flickering within or moving across their visual field.

10 additional undetected defects in the central visual field.

11 onable to facilitate foraging in the frontal visual field.

12 ea PO/V6), together form a single map of the visual field.

13 o profuse bleeding making unclear endoscopic visual field.

14 he nonuniform spatial integration across the visual field.

15 sparser pRF coverage in the periphery of the visual field.

16 perceptual differences observed 'around' the visual field.

17 able uncrossed disparity in that part of the visual field.

18 or response targets, were in the inactivated visual field.

19 the contralateral hemisphere of the attended visual field.

20 mates with high-acuity vision in the central visual field.

21 urring disparities in different parts of the visual field.

22 ions are represented at all locations in the visual field.

23 n studied by flashing stimuli to the central visual field.

24 eads to permanent vision loss in the central visual field.

25 attention was directed to the contralateral visual field.

26 training in either their sighted or deficit visual fields.

27 frequently found in lower rather than upper visual fields.

28 ad activity from both central and peripheral visual fields.

29 ents were followed for 3 years with reliable visual fields.

30 on is directed to a specific location of the visual field?

31 acknowledge the presence of a target in our visual field?

32 C24-2 MD in glaucoma eyes with early central visual field abnormalities.

33 Eyes with visual field abnormality but not glaucomatous optic neur

34 perimetric mean deviation (PMD) on Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer in both eyes.

35 om up to 33 positions in the animal's dorsal visual field and injected Neurobiotin tracer for cell id

36 olerated glaucoma medications or progressive visual field and optic nerve head changes despite maxima

37 visual function (measured by visual acuity, visual field and optical coherence tomography at differe

38 Primary endpoints are visual acuity, visual field and optical coherence tomography parameters

39 egeneration in the simulations mirrored both visual fields and optic nerve histology from patients wi

40 whereas resolution is poor in our peripheral visual field, and this loss of resolution follows an app

41 utation; retinal function as assessed by VA, visual fields, and electroretinography results; and reti

42 ected visual acuity, optic nerve appearance, visual fields, and global retinal nerve fiber layer.

43 Best-corrected visual acuity, visual fields, and OCT retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL)

44 more invariant to location of stimuli in the visual field; and more suppressed by repeated occurrence

45 as, such that neurons representing the lower visual field are more responsive to coherent motion.

46 In those with RP, visual field area (spot size III) declined exponentially

47 4-2 test were included to analyze equivalent visual field areas.

48 ements during a novel eye tracking threshold visual field assessment and determine whether eye moveme

49 All participants had normal visual fields at the time of imaging, but were considere

50 medications due to rapid progression in the visual fields (at least two in a short period of time).

51 istorted when faces were presented in either visual field, at different in-depth rotations, and at di

52 e for faces, or would show an upper or lower visual field bias.

53 observed for targets presented in the lower visual field but were absent for upper-field targets.

54 ation whose dendrites collectively cover the visual field, but whose axons form a single glomerulus-a

55 This variation in performance 'around' the visual field can be as pronounced as that of doubling th

56 aining was identical, consisting of Humphrey visual fields (Carl Zeiss Meditech), macular integrity a

57 atous progression (n = 78), as determined by visual field change (primary outcome), were assessed.

58 The rate of visual field change appears correlated with the magnitud

59 The long-term rate of visual field change in an eye is, in part, predicted by

60 n when the spatially corresponding RNFLT and visual field cluster defect do not show progression due

61 inal nerve fiber layer thickness (RNFLT) and visual field cluster defect values had reached their min

62 All inferior visual field cluster defect values progressed significan

63 This is because individuals' visual fields collectively cover more of their environme

64 , leads to lesser coverage of the peripheral visual field compared to controls.

65 otion coherence thresholds in the peripheral visual field compared to the central visual field was al

66 at provide lesser coverage of the peripheral visual field compared with healthy controls.

67 gonioscopy, pachymetry, specular microscopy, visual fields, complications, and adverse events.

68 ve for panoramic sampling of the part of the visual field corresponding to the substrate-water interf

69 racts consequentially to the gradual loss of visual field coverage (from intact perception to partial

70 e if incorporating the fellow eye's level of visual field damage (MD) or rate significantly improved

71 t exhibit faster progression of glaucomatous visual field damage compared to matched glaucoma patient

72 r in eyes with larger BMOA; however, age and visual field damage may influence that association.

73 younger patients with larger BMOA and worse visual field damage than the primary sample, sensitiviti

74 que capable of predicting future patterns of visual field damage.

75 uded decreased visual acuity (n = 23 [53%]), visual field defect (n = 2 [5%]), floaters (n = 7 [16%])

76 We report a novel central/paracentral visual field defect after PPV for RRD repair.

77 The visual field defect and corresponding anatomic ganglion

78 On worsening of visual field defect and optic disc damage, patients coul

79 n these defective angles and the severity of visual field defect has not been verified.

80 +c) with the presence of central scotoma and visual field defect parameters, respectively.

81 The severity of visual field defect was determined by mean deviation (MD

82 initial diagnosis, 4 of 14 eyes (28%) had no visual field defect, 4 (28%) had early visual field defe

83 iable method for determining the severity of visual field defect.

84 mal visual fields from those who developed a visual field defect.

85 eption, with 40% of patients having residual visual field defects on standard automated perimetry.

86 of the central and peripheral EVC following visual field defects specifically affecting central or p

87 inal follow-up, 3 of 14 eyes (21%) had early visual field defects, 4 (29%) had moderate visual field

88 ad no visual field defect, 4 (28%) had early visual field defects, and 6 (43%) had severe visual fiel

89 y visual field defects, 4 (29%) had moderate visual field defects, and 7 (50%) had severe visual fiel

90 isual field global indices, identify central visual field defects, and facilitate macular structure-f

91 displayed glaucomatous optic neuropathy with visual field defects.

92 ) have slow-to-moderate progression of their visual field defects.

93 visual field defects, and 7 (50%) had severe visual field defects.

94 visual field defects, and 6 (43%) had severe visual field defects.

95 dentified a comparable number of clusters of visual field defects.

96 ly interchangeable, especially if there is a visual field deficit <19 dB.

97 low glaucoma patients with less severe or no visual field deficit in the worse eye.

98 ible (0.01 < R2 < 0.18) except for the right visual field deficits (R2 = 0.38), even though multivari

99 All patients with papilledema and visual field deficits also exhibited improvement (p<0.00

100 mination task previously evidenced to reduce visual field deficits, but not in a randomized clinical

101 .5, P < .043) were associated with permanent visual field deficits.

102 nly assesses static visual acuity and static visual field despite many Paralympic sports being dynami

103 Detecting rapid visual field deterioration is crucial for individuals wi

104 Cluster trend analysis detects visual field deterioration with higher sensitivity than

105 rimary open-angle glaucoma patients to avoid visual field deterioration.

106 = 317), generalized eye pain (7.4%; n = 73), visual field disturbance (4.3%; n = 42), and postoperati

107 ired to induce a step was less than when the visual field either rotated in the opposite direction (F

108 Visual field evaluation was performed using the software

109 (Experiments 1-2) and in the upper and lower visual fields (Experiments 3, 4).

110 This was investigated by rotating the visual field forwards or backwards about the ankle, time

111 Visual fields from 5 major eye care institutions in the

112 layer atrophy separated patients with normal visual fields from those who developed a visual field de

113 with that of the 24-2C test grid to measure visual field global indices, identify central visual fie

114 red scene, the position of the target in the visual field governs the size of a window within which v

115 Visual acuity (VA), Goldmann visual field (GVF), optical coherence tomography, color

116 CSIs in the central visual field however have limited applicability as they

117 and for visual field progression on Humphrey visual field (HVF) assessment.

118 d mean deviation (MD) assessed with Humphrey visual field (HVF) testing protocols.

119 aphy [OCT] and standardized central Humphrey visual field [HVF] testing) to further characterize the

120 Visual acuity and visual field impairments corresponding to Paralympic cla

121 Visual field improvements beginning at 1 month and maint

122 While perimetric visual field improvements can occur spontaneously in the

123 integrates disparity information across the visual field, in a near-optimal fashion.

124 r aberrations and their variation across the visual field, in addition to variations of defocus due t

125 typically leading to a complete loss of the visual field, in AMD patients the disease is localized t

126 (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), and visual field index (VFI)).

127 t strategies were used: mean deviation (MD), visual field index (VFI), and the guided progression ana

128 intwise event analysis and trend analysis of visual field index (VFI), respectively.

129 (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), and visual field index (VFI).

130 ral networks were trained to estimate global visual field indices derived from automated Humphrey per

131 The accuracy of global visual field indices estimate is improved by integrating

132 The 24-2C returned global visual field indices similar to the 24-2 grid but tended

133 Global visual field indices, test duration, and pattern deviati

134 ades to ipsilateral as well as contralateral visual fields instead of just contralateral fields, ofte

135 tify and classify objects and individuals in visual fields is a technology of growing importance to o

136 ient-reported outcomes and quantification of visual field levels associated with disability in glauco

137 er face perception ability would show a left visual field (LeVF) bias due to earlier reports suggesti

138 the fear-associated grating orientation and visual-field location.

139 egration of visual input, independent of the visual-field location.

140 using predefined non-overlapping subsets of visual field locations.

141 irreversible changes to the optic nerve and visual field loss caused by the death of retinal ganglio

142 ility to discriminate eyes with glaucomatous visual field loss from healthy eyes with area under the

143 of the network to discriminate glaucomatous visual field loss from normal eyes.

144 ression and prediction of future patterns of visual field loss in glaucoma.

145 ng or optic nerve degeneration, resulting in visual field loss in patients with Glaucoma.

146 ness (a visual acuity of 3/60 or worse, or a visual field loss of <20 degrees in the better eye.) Inc

147 ween mean IOP by each tonometer and rates of visual field loss over time, while adjusting for age, ra

148 USH2 participants had more severe visual field loss than ARRP participants (P < .001, adju

149 ORA IOP(cc) was more predictive of rates of visual field loss than mean IOP obtained by GAT or RBT.

150 USH2 participants had more visual field loss than participants with USH2A-related A

151 tion in eyes with or at risk of glaucomatous visual field loss was "detected" if >= N(theta) clusters

152 Rates of visual field loss were assessed by standard automated pe

153 ences of visual acuity 0.008, P = 0.890; and visual field loss, -0.019, P = 0.819).

154 ity of glaucoma was defined by the extent of visual field loss, based on the Hodapp-Parrish-Anderson

155 6 dB for SAP MD, indicating relatively early visual field loss, may already be associated with signif

156 l") vision, and blind patients with complete visual field loss.

157 tous optic nerve damage, and/or glaucomatous visual field loss.

158 detecting eyes with repeatable glaucomatous visual field loss.

159 as found for visual acuities >2.6 logMAR and visual fields <10 degrees in diameter.

160 In both visual timing map and visual field map networks, selective responses and topog

161 ing maps largely overlap with numerosity and visual field map networks.

162 lds) systematically differ across and within visual field maps, and later areas exhibit more rapid an

163 data uncovers two regularities across human visual field maps: estimated linear filters (temporal re

164 Visual field MD ranged from -30.1 to 2.8 decibels (dB).

165 The mean visual field MD was -15.0 dB +/- 6.3 in the index eye an

166 calibrated IND-VFQ scores (r=-0.54) and with visual field MD, presenting VA, best-corrected VA, and S

167 or analysis was the eye with the less severe visual field mean defect (MD).

168 d with best BCVA in COMPASS and worsening of visual field mean defect (VFMD) >=2.5 dB compared with m

169 wer, type of glaucoma, severity of glaucoma, visual field mean defect, and retinal nerve fiber layer

170 (IOP) 21-40 mm Hg, cup:disc ratio >=0.6 and visual field mean deviation <=-3.

171 Disease severity was based on the visual field mean deviation (MD) and classified as early

172 Disease severity was based on the visual field mean deviation (MD) and classified as early

173 Longitudinal mixed effects models of visual field mean deviation (MD) and retinal nerve fiber

174 cular pressure (IOP) reduction and change in visual field mean deviation (MD) before and after interv

175 Average presenting visual acuity and visual field mean deviation (MD) in the better-seeing ey

176 e longitudinal variability of 10-2 and C24-2 visual field mean deviation (MD).

177 tly associated with age (P = 0.78), baseline visual field mean deviation (P = 1.00), or concurrent us

178 e (AROC = 0.981 and 0.976), correlation with visual field mean deviation (Pearson r = 0.819 and 0.831

179 signal strength (SS), age, axial length, and visual field mean deviation (VFMD) was tested (Pearson c

180 The differences of visual field mean deviation and peripapillary retinal ne

181 ion probabilities based on efficacy-adjusted visual field mean deviation decline per month.

182 ntraocular pressure, worse visual acuity and visual field mean deviation, and thinner corneas (all P

183 lmic measures included intraocular pressure, visual field mean deviation, central corneal thickness,

184 Global visual field metrics were compared among reliable and un

185 When the visual field moved in the same direction as the pull, so

186 G was defined by age-based mean deviation of visual field (n = 946).

187 the entire series based on the rate across n visual fields (n = 3 to 6) and used an analysis of varia

188 g spider Marpissa muscosa, in which size and visual fields of the two eye types are considerably diff

189 dichoptic (separated) eyes with overlapping visual fields of view.

190 as measured by levels of HbA1c, and rates of visual field or RNFL loss over time in individuals with

191 y high intraocular pressure (IOP), worsening visual field, or optic nerve head changes in whom primar

192 , BMO area, MCD, mean ALCSD, PLTT, RNFLT and visual field parameters (mean deviation (MD), pattern st

193 igmentosa with specific deterioration of the visual field: patients who had lost their peripheral vis

194 Main outcome measurements were visual field profile, defined by the HPA classification;

195 SP-A1 was associated with a greater risk of visual field progression (P = 0.002), synergistic with t

196 owering drug in patients with glaucoma using visual field progression as a primary outcome.

197 duction (7-9%) in the time to detect central visual field progression compared to C24-2 MD in glaucom

198 esent study found a more frequent and faster visual field progression in exfoliation than in primary

199 Risk factors for visual field progression in glaucoma can affect both eye

200 The present study aimed to compare visual field progression in new-diagnosed exfoliation ve

201 l thinning using spectral-domain OCT and for visual field progression on Humphrey visual field (HVF)

202 er of eyes with well-controlled IOP may show visual field progression over time.

203 Visual field progression rate (in decibels per year).

204 We determined visual field progression rates using linear regression o

205 Visual field progression rates were correlated positivel

206 thinner CCT were at 3.7-fold greater risk of visual field progression relative to eyes with thicker C

207 Visual field progression was assessed by PROGRESSOR soft

208 Overall, the time to detect central visual field progression was reduced by 7-9% using the 1

209 Rates of visual field progression were calculated using ordinary

210 For visual field progression, three different strategies wer

211 usters provides a useful tool for monitoring visual field progression.

212 elected patients with higher risk of central visual field progression.

213 well-controlled IOP, 42 (23.5%) demonstrated visual field progression.

214 independent readers from the optic disc and visual field reading centers of the OHTS.

215 was associated with higher odds of long-term visual field recovery and maintenance (odds ratio [OR]:

216 isk prediction model developed for long-term visual field recovery and maintenance that incorporated

217 Long-term visual field recovery and maintenance were defined as a

218 for head tilt changes to maintain a similar visual field relative to the horizontal ground plane.

219 o visual attention suppressed mainly central visual field representations.

220 ical areas that represent lower versus upper visual fields, respectively.

221 -Faster produced a higher rate of unreliable visual field results (30%-49.7%) compared with SITA-Stan

222 the fellow eye, particularly when only a few visual field results are available for each eye.

223 tes were then used to reconstruct real-world visual field results by computer simulations, in a scena

224 ield: patients who had lost their peripheral visual field, retaining only central ("tunnel") vision,

225 ucoma eyes were subdivided based on of their visual field severity (early, n = 234; moderate, n = 107

226 However, visual field specializations have not been studied in th

227 ng during 2011-2014 underwent 10-2 automated visual field, spectral domain optical coherence tomograp

228 Visual fields, stereoscopic disc photographs, and detail

229 acuity, full-field electroretinography, and visual field studies.

230 l deficits in diseases affecting the central visual field such as AMD.

231 tation to enhance color coding for the upper visual field suitable for mice's habitat and behavior.

232 hieved using the 24-2C grid, but half of the visual field test locations did not coincide with the co

233 derived OCT image features), and functional (visual field test parameters) data and the intervisit in

234 ility as they have only been described using visual field test patterns with low, 6 degrees spatial s

235 Visual field test results from 1 eye of 364 patients (77

236 ntribute to a large proportion of unreliable visual field test results, particularly when using SITA-

237 nships were compared after correction of the visual field test stimulus location that stimulated the

238 Up to now, visual acuity measurement, visual field testing and orthoptic testing are the most

239 phthalmological testing (i.e. visual acuity, visual field testing) in children with a brain tumor.

240 A) for RNFLT and PcVD, and Octopus Normal G2 visual field testing, at 6-month intervals for 2.5 years

241 hotography, fundus autofluorescence imaging, visual field testing, full-field electroretinography, an

242 vailable retinal imaging, including Humphrey visual field testing, fundus photography (FP), OCT, fluo

243 arning transferred to other locations in the visual field, the category-induced transfer of VPL occur

244 es convey the left-right organization of the visual field, their regulation of ChC density through th

245 Four of 12 eyes (33%) had stable visual fields throughout follow-up, while 8 eyes (67%) h

246 nd secondary glaucoma while leaving BCVA and visual field unchanged.

247 pond to looming in different portions of the visual field, unexpectedly preserving spatial informatio

248 ere determined within the central 20 degrees visual field using the 10-2 test grid paradigm of the Hu

249 tation of standard automated perimetry (SAP) visual fields using 29,161 fields from 3,832 patients.

250 We performed screening visual fields using a calibrated iPad 2 with the VFE app

251 istory of prematurity and is associated with visual field (VF) defects and optic disc cupping.

252 Visual field (VF) defects in the glaucoma eyes were clas

253 Glaucoma clinical trials using visual field (VF) endpoints currently require large samp

254 The visual field (VF) index was used for the vertical axis a

255 We used a gaze-contingent simulated visual field (VF) loss paradigm, in which participants e

256 Visual field (VF) loss severity is associated with highe

257 OCTA), and its relationship with the central visual field (VF) loss.

258 laucoma and 44 had perimetric glaucoma, with visual field (VF) mean deviation (MD) of -5.14+/-4.25 de

259 , ganglion cell complex (GCC) thickness, and visual field (VF) mean deviation (MD) were investigated

260 t has maximal correlation and agreement with visual field (VF) mean deviation (MD).

261 boundary detection predictor of glaucomatous visual field (VF) progression (STBound) was developed.

262 Cox model for predictors of time-to-incident visual field (VF) progression was computed with the TD O

263 ity (VA) was 0.79 +/- 0.30 in both eyes, and visual field (VF) results were -9.89 +/- 11.52 dB in bot

264 etinal nerve fiber layer scans, >=5 reliable visual field (VF) results, and follow-up of >=4 years.

265 sc was partitioned into 8 sectors to match 8 visual field (VF) sectors.

266 Using these OCT-derived models, we predicted visual field (VF) sensitivities and compared these resul

267 deviation (PSD) metric, based upon the 24-2 visual field (VF) test, as well as the PSD of the 10-2 V

268 All participants underwent visual field (VF) testing (SITA - Standard 24-2; Carl Ze

269 To evaluate the influence of automated visual field (VF) testing on intraocular pressure (IOP)

270 Baseline in-clinic visual field (VF) was recorded with the Humphrey Field A

271 nation, including mfERG, visual acuity (VA), visual field (VF), Lanthony desaturated panel D-15 test

272 oma Treatment Study (UKGTS) investigated the visual field (VF)-preserving effect of medical treatment

273 n optical coherence tomography with the 10-2 visual field (VF).

274 undus photographs or OCT, independent of the visual field (VF).

275 a tablet device used for home monitoring of visual field (VF-Home) by glaucoma patients.

276 sc and macular cube scans, and 10-2 and 24-2 visual fields (VF).

277 sure [IOP], central corneal thickness [CCT], visual field [VF], and OCT) were extracted and binary lo

278 hes to determining glaucoma progression from visual fields (VFs) alone are discordant and have tradeo

279 Of 31 591 visual fields (VFs) on 8077 subjects, 13 231 VFs from th

280 inical data including visual acuity (VA) and visual fields (VFs) were collated from medical records.

281 Visual fields (VFs) were measured using standard automat

282 multiple OCT generations with corresponding visual fields (VFs).

283 One hundred twenty eyes with >=3 10 degrees visual fields (VFs)/OCT images were enrolled for the lon

284 ipheral visual field compared to the central visual field was also present.

285 r of CSIs detected in the central 20 degrees visual field was greater than previously reported with l

286 The visual field was severely decreased and electroretinogra

287 Visual acuity and visual field were measured.

288 Fundus photographs and visual fields were carefully examined by 2 independent r

289 olds could be measured when visual acuity or visual fields were impaired at levels consistent with th

290 Self-reported medication adherence and visual fields were measured.

291 itrectomy however this study did not examine visual fields which could warrant additional assessment

292 al scene relies on information in the center visual field, which are relayed from each retina in para

293 V-bright prey capture in their upper frontal visual field, which may use the signal from a single con

294 on enhances visual sampling toward the lower visual field, which would be advantageous for visually g

295 earliest detectable and involve the inferior visual field with 3 levels of severity.

296 We subjectively perceive our visual field with high fidelity, yet peripheral distorti

297 ability in SAP by identifying regions of the visual field with statistically similar patterns of chan

298 between words and locations in left or right visual fields with contextual odor throughout.

299 nto a representation of the peripheral upper visual field without an intervening lower quadrant repre

300 ators, enhanced visual sampling of the lower visual field would be advantageous for the control of lo