Gardiner SK, Demirel S. Assessment of patient opinions of different clinical tests used in the management of glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:2127–31.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Chew SS, Kerr NM, Wong AB, Craig JP, Chou CY, Danesh-Meyer HV. Anxiety in visual field testing. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100:1128–33.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Hollander DA, Volpe NJ, Moster ML, Liu GT, Balcer LJ, Judy KD, et al. Use of a portable head mounted perimetry system to assess bedside visual fields. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000;84:1185–90.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Wroblewski D, Francis BA, Sadun A, Vakili G, Chopra V. Testing of visual field with virtual reality goggles in manual and visual grasp modes. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:206082.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Kong YX, He M, Crowston JG, Vingrys AJ. A comparison of perimetric results from a tablet perimeter and Humphrey Field Analyzer in glaucoma patients. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2016;5:2.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Nakanishi M, Wang YT, Jung TP, Zao JK, Chien YY, Diniz-Filho A, et al. Detecting glaucoma with a portable brain-computer interface for objective assessment of visual function loss. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017;135:550–7.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Prea SM, Kong YXG, Mehta A, He M, Crowston JG, Gupta V, et al. Six-month longitudinal comparison of a portable tablet perimeter with the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Am J Ophthalmol. 2018;190:9–16.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Jones PR, Smith ND, Bi W, Crabb DP. Portable perimetry using eye-tracking on a tablet computer-A feasibility assessment. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2019;8:17.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Mees L, Upadhyaya S, Kumar P, Kotawala S, Haran S, Rajasekar S, et al. Validation of a head-mounted virtual reality visual field screening device. J Glaucoma. 2020;29:86–91.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Pradhan ZS, Sircar T, Agrawal H, Rao HL, Bopardikar A, Devi S, et al. Comparison of the performance of a novel, smartphone-based, head-mounted perimeter (GearVision) with the Humphrey Field Analyzer. J Glaucoma. 2021;30:e146–e52.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Razeghinejad R, Gonzalez-Garcia A, Myers JS, Katz LJ. Preliminary report on a novel virtual reality perimeter compared with standard automated perimetry. J Glaucoma. 2021;30:17–23.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Matsumoto C, Yamao S, Nomoto H, Takada S, Okuyama S, Kimura S, et al. Visual field testing with head-mounted perimeter ‘imo’. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0161974.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Hayashi Y, Sakamoto M, Murai Y, Nishisho R, Hayashida M, Mori S, et al. Utility of the imo®"Binocular random single-eye test” in Glaucoma practice. Nippon Ganka Gakkai zasshi. 2021;125:530–8. (In Japanese).

Google Scholar 

Kimura T, Matsumoto C, Nomoto H. Comparison of head-mounted perimeter (imo®) and Humphrey Field Analyzer. Clin Ophthalmol. 2019;13:501–13.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Sakamoto M, Sawamura H, Aihara M, Goseki T, Ikeda T, Ishikawa H, et al. Agreement in the detection of chiasmal and postchiasmal visual field defects between imo binocular random single-eye test and Humphrey monocular test. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2022;66:413–24.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Goseki T, Ishikawa H, Shoji N. Bilateral concurrent eye examination with a head-mounted perimeter for diagnosing functional visual loss. Neuroophthalmology. 2016;40:281–5.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Montesano G, Bryan SR, Crabb DP, Fogagnolo P, Oddone F, McKendrick AM, et al. A comparison between the compass fundus perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Ophthalmology. 2019;126:242–51.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Russell RA, Crabb DP, Malik R, Garway-Heath DF. The relationship between variability and sensitivity in large-scale longitudinal visual field data. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:5985–90.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Artes PH, Iwase A, Ohno Y, Kitazawa Y, Chauhan BC. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA fast strategies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:2654–9.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Goukon H, Hirasawa K, Kasahara M, Matsumura K, Shoji N. Comparison of Humphrey Field Analyzer and imo visual field test results in patients with glaucoma and pseudo-fixation loss. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0224711.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

João CAR, Scanferla L, Jansonius NM. Binocular interactions in glaucoma patients with nonoverlapping visual field defects: contrast summation, rivalry, and phase combination. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2021;62(12):9.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Fuhr PS, Hershner TA, Daum KM. Ganzfeld blankout occurs in bowl perimetry and is eliminated by translucent occlusion. Arch Ophthalmol. 1990;108:983–8.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Aydin P, Acaroglu G, Cuhadaroglu H, Zilelioglu O. Comparison of translucent versus opaque occluders in automated static perimetry. Neuroophthalmology. 1997;17:185–8.

Article  Google Scholar 

Wakayama A, Matsumoto C, Ayato Y, Shimomura Y. Comparison of monocular sensitivities measured with and without occlusion using the head-mounted perimeter imo. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0210691.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Effect of dichoptic adaptation on frequency-doubling perimetry. Optom Vis Sci. 2002;79:88–92.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Anderson AJ, McKendrick AM. Quantifying adaptation and fatigue effects in frequency doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:943–8.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ishibashi T, Matsumoto C, Nomoto H, Tanabe F, Narita I, Ishibashi M, et al. Measurement of fixational eye movements with the head-mounted perimeter imo. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2022;11(8):26.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Saunders LJ, Russell RA, Crabb DP. Measurement precision in a series of visual fields acquired by the standard and fast versions of the swedish interactive thresholding algorithm: analysis of large-scale data from clinics. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133:74–80.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Heijl A, Patella VM, Flanagan JG, Iwase A, Leung CK, Tuulonen A, et al. False positive responses in standard automated perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2022;233:180–8.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Bengtsson B, Heijl A. False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:2201–4.

CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Bengtsson B. Reliability of computerized perimetric threshold tests as assessed by reliability indices and threshold reproducibility in patients with suspect and manifest glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2000;78:519–22.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Yohannan J, Wang J, Brown J, Chauhan BC, Boland MV, Friedman DS, et al. Evidence-based criteria for assessment of visual field reliability. Ophthalmology. 2017;124:1612–20.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar