title: [Comparative analysis of the results of microperimetry and conventional computed perimetry in health].
abstract: Twenty-one healthy volunteers aged 21 to 37 years (21 eyes) were examined on a MP-1 microperimeter and a Humphrey HFA II-750i perimeter by the 10-2 program. The standard stimulation parameters used on the microperimeter revealed a wide plateau in the central visual field due to the limited stimulus intensity range of MP-1. The comparable data on both perimeters could be obtained only with small-sized stimuli (Goldmann I). However, quantitative comparison demonstrated significant differences in the reduction of differential light thresholds from 2 degrees to 10 degrees from the fixation point. The studies have indicated that the technical characteristics of the MP-1 microperimeter does not allow one to elaborate algorithms for recounting the data to compare with those obtained on the Humphrey perimeter. It has been ascertained that the MP-1 microperimeter should not be used to solve the problems of conventional computed perimetry.
authors: A A
authors: AA
authors: Shpak
authors: G F
authors: GF
authors: Kachalina
authors: E K
authors: EK
authors: Pedanova
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D008297:Male; D012016:Reference Values; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D058609:Visual Field Tests / Q000379:methods*; D014794:Visual Fields; D055815:Young Adult