A comparison of global indices between the Medmont Automated Perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer

John Landers*, Alok Sharma, Ivan Goldberg, Stuart Graham

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

14 Citations (Scopus)


Background: Two commonly used perimeters in Australia are the Humphrey Field Analyzer II (HFA) and the Medmont Automated Perimeter (MAP). Each device describes the visual field in terms of numerical values called global indices; however, these values are not interchangeable between devices. This study was designed to directly compare the global indices of HFA and MAP visual fields. Methods: 63 subjects who had suspected glaucoma, ocular hypertension or glaucoma, or were normal controls were recruited selectively. Each patient was tested with the MAP and HFA. Global indices were then compared between tests. These included mean deviation (MD) and pattern standard deviation (PSD) from the HFA and average detect (AD) and pattern detect (PD) from the MAP. Results: The MD and PSD results were strongly correlated with the AD and PD results, respectively. The relationship between them could be described in terms of two polynomial equations: AD = 0.94+1.31(MD)+0.02(MD)2 and PD = 2.21(PSD)-0.05(PSD)2-0.006. These non-linear relationships may be the result of differences in testing method (test stimulus spectrum, number of testing locations or background luminance) or differences in the way each global index was calculated. Conclusion: The AD and PD results obtained from the MAP may be substituted for the MD and PSD results from the HFA after appropriate conversion.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1285-1287
Number of pages3
JournalBritish Journal of Ophthalmology
Issue number10
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2007
Externally publishedYes


Dive into the research topics of 'A comparison of global indices between the Medmont Automated Perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this