A clinical comparison of visual field testing with a new automated perimeter, the Humphrey Field Analyzer, and the Goldmann perimeter.

Automated threshold static perimetry with the Humphrey field analyzer and kinetic and suprathreshold static perimetry with the Goldmann perimeter were performed on 171 eyes: 69 with glaucoma or ocular hypertension, 69 with "neurologic" disorders, and 33 normal. The two fields were similar or differed only slightly in 78% of eyes overall and in 88% when both fields appeared reliable. In general, defects were slightly more extensive using the Humphrey than the Goldmann perimeter. In 21% of the eyes with glaucoma or ocular hypertension, defects were found with the Humphrey perimeter that were not present with the Goldmann perimeter. Patient fixation was more difficult to maintain on the Humphrey than Goldmann perimeter. Poor fixation accounted for 9% of the automated fields being inadequate whereas only 2% of the manual fields were inadequate. The results indicate that the Humphrey Field Analyzer is capable of reliably detecting and quantitating visual field defects.