蓝/黄视野计与标准白色视野计在早期青光眼诊断中的意义

目的　评价蓝 /黄视野计 (blue- on- yellow perimetry B/Y又叫短波视野计 short- wavelength perime-try)与标准白色视野计 (white- on- white perim etry W/W)检测早期青光眼的敏感性。方法　采用瑞士产 Octo-pus10 1型全自动视野计对早期原发性开角型青光眼 17例 (34只眼 ) ,对照组正常人 8例 (16只眼 ) ,进行 B/Y及W/W检测 ,视野检测采用 t G2 测试程序 ,将中心 30°视野内全视网膜光敏感度均值及各象限光敏感度均值 d B进行比较分析。结果　两种视野计检测正常人 B/Y较 W/W检测全视网膜光敏感度均值低 ,两者相差 3.96 d B,差异有显著意义 (t=5 .11,P <0 .0 0 1) ,对应各象限视网膜光敏感度均值比较 ,差异均有显著意义 (P <0 .0 0 1) ,早期开角型青光眼 B/Y较 W/W检测全视网膜光敏感度均值差为 5 .34d B,差异有显著意义 (t=5 .87,P <0 .0 0 1)。早期开角型青光眼组 34只眼 B/Y检测视野阳性者 2 4只眼 ,阳性率为 70 .5 9% ,W/W检测视野阳性者 14只眼 ,阳性率为 4 1.18% ,两种视野计检测结果的异常率有显著差异 (χ2 =5 .33,P <0 .0 5 )。结论　 B/Y与 W/W检测结果有良好的一致性 ,检测早期开角型青光眼的视野改变 B/Y较 W/W敏感 ,表现为早期青光眼检测阳性率高 ,检测出的视野缺损范围大而且深     

蓝/黄视野计与标准白色视野计在早期青光眼诊断中的意义

目的 :评价蓝 /黄视野计 (blue on yellowperimetry ,B/Y)又叫短波视野计short wavelengthperimetry与标准白色视野计 (white on whiteperimetry ,W /W )检测早期青光眼的敏感性。方法 :采用瑞士产Octopus 10 1型全自动视野计对早期原发性开角型青光眼 17例 3 4只眼 ,对照组正常人 8例 16只眼 ,进行B/Y及W /W检测 ,视野检测采用tG2 测试程序 ,将中心 3 0°视野内全视网膜光敏感度均值及各象限光敏感度均值 (dB)进行比较分析。结果 :两种视野计检测正常人B/Y较W /W检测全视网膜光敏感度均值低 ,两者相差 3 96dB ,差异有显著意义 (t =5 11,P <0 0 0 1) ,对应各象限视网膜光敏感度均值比较 ,差异均有显著意义 (P <0 0 0 1) ,早期开角型青光眼B/Y较W /W检测全视网膜光敏感度均值差为 5 3 4dB ,差异有显著意义 (t =5 87,P <0 0 0 1) ,对应各象限视网膜光敏感度均值差 5dB以上 ,差异有显著性 (P <0 0 0 1) ,视网膜光敏感度均值依次为鼻下 >颞下 >鼻上 >颞上 ,以B/Y检测出的缺损面积大且深 ,按矫正偏差图 (cor rectedprobability)计算P <2以上缺损点数 ,显示B/Y检测结果大于W /W检测结果 ,前者为后者的 2 2 3倍 ,差异有显著意义( χ2 =13 0 4,P <0 0 0 5 ) ,早期开角型青光眼组 3 4只眼B/Y检测视野     

蓝/黄视野计与标准白色视野计检测早期青光眼的敏感性比较

目的　探讨蓝 /黄视野计 (blue on yellowperimetry ,B/Y)又称短波视野计 (short wavelengthperimetry)及自动标准白色视野计 (white on whiteperimetry ,W/W)检测早期青光眼的敏感性。方法　采用自行改装的德国Twinfield视野计 ,对 36例 (46只眼 )早期原发性开角型青光眼患者及 38例对照组正常人 (46只眼 )进行B/Y及W/W检测 ,两组的年龄及性别相匹配。视野检查采用 2 4 2程序 ,将中心 2 5°内全视网膜光敏感度均值及各象限光敏感度均值 (dB值 )进行组间比较和分析。结果　两种视野计检测正常人 ,B/Y较W/W检测全视网膜光敏感度均值低 ,差异有显著意义 (t=3 57,P <0 0 0 1 ) ,但两者仅相差 1 63dB ;两种视野计检测的各对应象限间视网膜光敏感度均值比较 ,差异均有显著意义 (t=3 45 ,P <0 0 0 1 ) ,W/W检测的各象限视网膜光敏感度均值 >与之相对应象限的B/Y检测结果。两种视野计检测早期青光眼 ,全视网膜光敏感度均值差为 2 87dB ,差异有显著意义 (t=4 57,P <0 0 0 1 ) ;各对应象限间视网膜光敏感度均值差 >2 5dB ,差异有显著意义 (t=3 42 ,P <0 0 0 1 ) ;光敏感度均值依次为鼻下 >颞下 >鼻上 >颞上 ;以B/Y检测出的视野缺损面积大且深。按视岛 (islandofvision)矫正的偏差图 (correcteddeviation)     

黄斑阈值检测在早期青光眼诊断中的应用

目的　通过对早期青光眼组和正常对照组进行标准视野 ( white- on- white perim etry,W/ W )、黄斑阈值检测( macular threshold perim etry,MTP) ,探讨黄斑阈值检测在青光眼早期诊断中的应用价值。方法　采用 Hum phrey II-75 0型自动视野计 ,对正常组 6 0例 6 0眼 ,早期原发性青光眼组 6 3例 6 3眼进行 W/ W与 MTP,并对 2种视野检查结果进行比较分析。结果　 ( 1)正常人 W/ W平均光敏感度 ( m eansensibility,MS)为 ( 2 8.2 2± 1.38) d B;MTP的 MS为 ( 31.84± 1.91) d B,二者 MS差别具有统计学意义 ( P<0 .0 1)。正常人 W/ W及 MTP上下方无缺损点。 W/ W与年龄无明显相关性 ( P=0 .12 ) ;MTP与年龄呈负相关性 ( P=0 .0 44 ) ;( 2 )早期青光眼组的 W/ W的 MS为 ( 2 6 .43± 2 .81) d B;MTP的MS为 ( 30 .44± 2 .10 ) d B。 2种方法 MS之间差别有显著性( P<0 .0 1)。 W/ W及 MTP缺损点数上方多于下方 ,之间的差别无显著性 ( P>0 .0 5 )。早期青光眼组中 W/ W及 MTP的 MS均与年龄相关 ( P<0 .0 1) ;( 3)正常组与早期青光眼组的 W/ W与 MTP的 MS差别具有统计学意义 ( P <0 .0 5 )。结论　 MTP与 W/ W正常人及早期青光眼均有较好相符性 ;MTP在早期青光眼即引起其光敏感度下降 ,是早期青光眼诊断敏感性较     

正常人蓝/黄视野和白/白视野的阈值变异性比较

目的:比较正常人蓝/黄(B/Y)视野检查法和白/白(W/W)视野检查法阈值的短期波动、长期波动及个体间变异。方法:应用Octopus101全自动视野计对22￣29岁正常人22例22眼进行B/Y视野检查及W/W视野检查,检测2种视野阈值的短期波动、长期波动及个体间变异,并对短期波动均值、平均阈值长期波动均值及平均阈值的个体间变异进行比较;对B/Y视野1～59个点的阈值长期波动进行分析。结果:B/Y视野检查法的短期波动(1.81±0.28)dB,平均阈值的长期波动(2.64±1.25)dB,均大于W/W视野检查法(1.34±0.21)dB,(1.37±0.78)dB,差异有显著性意义(t=6.60,P<0.001)和(t=4.22;P<0.001);B/Y视野检查法的个体间变异大于W/W视野检查法,差异有显著性意义(F=39.44;41.24;75.37;90.67;均为P<0.0001)。B/Y视野1～59个点阈值长期波动随离心度的增加而增大,呈正相关关系(r=0.4613,P<0.05),上方象限29个点阈值的长期波动(4.41±2.48)dB大于下方象限29个点的长期波动(3.84±2.48)dB,比较有显著意义(t=3.68;P<0.001)。结论:B/Y视野检查法的正常人的阈值变异较W/W视野检查法大,需要有更大的正常值范围。在评估B/Y视野的结果时,应考虑阈值改变的位置和程度,必要时重复检测。常规的W/W视野检查应保留对青光眼的诊断和随访。     

蓝/黄视野检查法和白/白视野检查法阈值变异的对比研究

目的:比较蓝/黄视野检查法[Blue-on-yellow（B/Y）perimetry]和白/白视野检查法[White-on-white（W/W）perimetry]阈值变异的情况,评价B/Y视野检查法的可重复性。方法:应用Octopus 101全自动视野计分别对12例（24眼）正常人、16例（32眼）原发性开角型青光眼（Primary open angle glaucoma,POAG）和 7例（14眼）可疑POAG患者分别进行B/Y视野检查和W/W视野检查。所有受检者在2周内再次分别进行上述两种视野检查。将两种视野检查的阈值进行点对点阈值变异分析和比较。结果:在所有受检者中,B/Y视野检查的全视野总的平均阈值变异（2.61±0.94）decibels（dB）大于 W/W视野检查的阈值变异（2.11±0.90）dB,但差异无显著性意义（P=0.6244）。正常人 B/Y视野检查的全视野总的平均阈值变异（2.07±0.54）dB明显大于W/W视野检查的阈值变异（1.50±0.34）dB（P=0.0006）,而可疑POAG和POAG组,两种视野检查的全视野总的平均阈值变异差异无显著性意义（P=0.0523和 0.9371）。正常人和可疑POAG组中,有部分离心度处的阈值变异,两种视野检查法之间差异有显著性意义,而在POAG组中,两种视野检查法各相应离心度之间差异均无显著性意义。结论:正常人B/Y视野检查的阈值变异大于W/W视野检查的阈值变异,而可疑POAG和POAG患者B/Y     

标准白色视野与蓝／黄视野检测不同阶段青光眼视野的对比研究

目的比较自动标准白色视野计（white-on-white perimetry,啪w）和蓝／黄视野计（blue-on-bellow perimetry,B/Y）检测不同阶段青光眼视野损害的敏感性。设计横断面调查。研究对象青光眼患者42例（71眼）。方法采用HumphreyⅡ-750型自动视野计对青光眼患者进行B／Y及W｜W检查。根据晚期青光跟治疗研究（Advanced GlaucomaIntervention Study,AGlS）视野评分标准,将青光眼患者分早、中、晚三组,运用青光眼首选治疗研究（collaborative initial glaucoma treatment study,CIGTS）方法,对视野缺损进行评分。比较三组不同时期青光眼应用两种视野计检查,在视野平均缺损（Meandeviation,MD）、模式标准差（Pattern Standard Deviation,PSD）、CIGTS评分方面的差异。主要指标视野的平均缺损、模式标准差、CIGTS评分。结果两种视野计检查MD的均值结果在早、中期青光眼组,B／Y检测的MD（-8．65dB±3．89dB;-14．94dB±3．22dB）较w／W（-3．29dB±2．40dB;-10．04dB±2．73dB）低,t=9．21,P〈0．001及t=-4．89,P〈0．001;在晚期青光眼组,B／Y检测的MD（-22．07dB±2．64dB）较w／w（-25．20dB±5．48dB）高,t=3．93,P〈0．001。两种视野计检查PSD的均值结果,在早期青光眼组,B／Y检测的PSD（4．17dB±1．20dB）较W／W（3．22dB±2．90dB）高,t=2．12,P〈0．05;在中、晚期青光眼组,B／Y检测的PSD较W/W低（t=-3．04,P〈0．01,t=-2．96,P〈0．001）。两种视野计CIGTS评分的均值结果,在早期青光眼组,B／Y的CIGTS评分（5．35±3．83）较W/W（3．36±3．12）高,t=2．67,P〈0．05）;在中、晚期青光眼组,B／Y的CIGTS评分较W/W低,t-4131,P〈0．05及t=-4．02,P〈0．001。结论对于早期青光眼的视野检测,B/Y较W/W敏感,但对于中晚期青光眼,W/W视野较B／Y更敏感。对于早期青光眼及可疑青光眼采用B／Y视野检测较敏感,而对于中晚期青?     

早期原发性青光眼的蓝黄视野及黄斑阈值视野检测

目的 探讨蓝黄视野及黄斑阈值视野检测在早期原发性青光眼诊断中的应用价值。 方法 采用Humphrey II 750型自动视野计，对正常人60例60只眼、早期原发性青光眼患者63 例63只眼进行标准视野（white-on-white perimetry, W/W）、蓝黄视野（blue-on-yellow perimetry, B/Y）及黄斑阈值视野（macular threshold perimetry, MTP）检查,计算比较3 种检测方法在早期原发性青光眼诊断中的敏感度及特异度，并采用B/Y及MTP并联及串联实验进行分析。 结果 比较正常组与早期原发性青光眼组W/W、B/Y、MTP的平均光敏感度，差异均有显著性的意义［t=-3.01, P=0.0054 (W/W)；t=-2.95, P=0.0063 (B/Y)；t=-2.59,P=0.0150 (MTP)］。在早期原发性青光眼诊断中，MTP的敏感度最高（83%），B/Y次之（65%），W/W最低（48%）。将B/Y与MTP联合运用时，并联试验可使敏感度提高到94%；串联试验可使特异度提高到87%。 结论 在早期原发性青光眼诊断中，B/Y、MTP及两者的联合应用均可提高诊断的敏感度与特异度，有一定的应用价值。 （中华眼底病杂志，2003，19：102-105）     

倍频视野计对开角型青光眼正常半侧视野的检测结果

目的　了解倍频视野计 (frequency doublingperimetry ,FDP)检测早期青光眼视野异常的能力。方法　对Humphery视野计检测结果仅为半侧视野异常的 4 9例 (49只眼 )开角型青光眼患者 ,进行FDP(C 2 0阈值程序检测 )及海德堡视网膜断层扫描仪 (Heidelbergretinaltomography ,HRT)检测。根据检测结果 ,将患者分成FDP正常组及异常组 ;再将两组的HRT检测参数进行比较分析。结果FDP检测的平均光敏感度与HRT视野检测结果的平均偏差有显著相关性 (r =0 5 83,P <0 0 0 0 )。Humphery检测的异常半侧视野 ,FDP检测显示正常的仅占 2 0 % (1/ 4 9)。而Humphery检测的正常半侧视野 ,FDP检测显示异常的为 4 0 8% (2 0 / 4 9) ,与其相对应视乳头的HRT检测参数相比 ,FDP异常组的视杯面积和杯 /盘面积比值较FDP正常组的检测值大 (t=2 36 0和 2 4 39,P <0 0 5 ) ,而盘缘面积和盘缘容积则较FDP正常组小 (t=2 32 9和 2 5 79,P <0 0 5 )。结论　FDP不仅能检测出HRT发现的视野缺损 ,而且能显示HRT尚未能检测出的早期青光眼视野异常 ;FDP检测结果与HRT检测参数显示的青光眼性视乳头变化相一致。     

蓝/黄视野与标准白色视野检测在早期青光眼诊断中敏感性的比较

目的　探讨蓝 /黄视野计与标准白色视野计检查在原发性开角型青光眼早期诊断中的价值。方法　采用瑞士产Octopus10 1型全自动视野计对早期原发性开角型青光眼 2 2例 44眼、对照组正常人 2 0例 40眼进行B/Y及W /W检测 ,视野检测采用tG2 测试程序 ,将中心 3 0°视野内全视网膜光敏感度均值及各象限光敏感度均值 (dB)进行比较。结果　两种视野计检测正常人B/Y较W/W检测全视网膜光敏感度均值低 ,相差 4 2 4dB。早期开角型青光眼B/Y较W /W检测全视网膜光敏感度均值差为 5 5 8dB ,对应各象限视网膜光敏感度均值差 5dB以上 ,视网膜光敏感度均值依次为鼻下>颞下 >鼻上 >颞上 ,以B/Y检测出的缺损面积大且深。早期开角型青光眼组 44眼B/Y检测视野阳性 3 2眼 ,( 72 73 % ) ,W /W检测视野阳性 17眼 ( 3 8 64 % ) ,两种视野计检测结果的异常率有显著差异 (P <0 0 5 )。结论　B/Y与W/W检测结果有良好的符合性 ,检测早期开角型青光眼的视野改变B/Y较W/W敏感。     

正常人群藍、黄視野閾值的參考標準

目的 为蓝/黄视野检测在青光眼的早期诊断方面建立一个参考标准。方法 对26例受试对象(48眼)作蓝/黄视野检测并记录下各自的阈值,并在左眼与右眼之间、性别之间作比较,了解其差异性。然后,制定出正常人蓝/黄褐野阈值的正常参考范围,并与相应的G视野检查结果作比较。结果 结果表明,正常人群的蓝/黄视野阈值在左眼与右眼之间、性别之间没有显著性差异,正常人群的蓝/黄视野阈值范围是:26.127±1.767,与相应的G视野阈值有高度显著性差异。结论 正常人群的蓝/黄视野阈值范围建立为青光眼早期诊断打下了基础,另外,在正常人群中,其蓝/黄视野阈值与相应的G视野阈值本身就存在着显著性差异。     

早期青光眼患者普通與藍、黄視野值的比較分析

目的為藍黄視野計在開角型青光眼早期診斷方面的作用提供先導分析.方法對17例(27眼)早期青光眼患者分别采用普通與藍黄視野計進行視野檢查,并對其相應的值作統針學比較分析.結果普通視野計與藍黄視野計對早期青光眼的檢查結果有高度統計學差异(P＜0.01),藍黄視野在診斷早期青光眼時更敏感.結論藍黄視野分析是一種可靠、準確、簡便,更適合早期青光眼診斷的方法.     

The use of semi-automated kinetic perimetry (SKP) to monitor advanced glaucomatous visual field loss

PURPOSE: (i) To compare visual field (VF) results obtained with semi-automated kinetic perimetry (SKP) and automated static perimetry (ASP) in patients with advanced glaucomatous VF loss, (ii) to evaluate test-retest reliability of SKP and ASP and (iii) to assess patients' preference for SKP and ASP. METHODS: Twenty eyes of 20 patients (11 male, 9 female, aged 38 to 83 years) with advanced glaucomatous VF loss (stage III or IV according to the Aulhorn classification). Each of the 20 patients were examined in 4 sessions every 3 months with SKP (Goldmann stimulus III4e, I4e and at least one additional dimmer stimulus, within the 90 degrees visual field) and ASP within the 30 degrees VF, employing a threshold-related, supra-threshold test strategy with high spatial resolution for the same instrument (Octopus 101 perimeter, Haag-Streit Inc., Koeniz, Switzerland). RESULTS: Visual field areas (VFA) were compared by analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) with co-variable time, patient effect and their interaction. Test-retest reliability was assessed by ratios (R) of intersection and union of VFA: The mean VFA within the 30 degrees of VF at baseline was 2,344 square degrees (deg(2)) with SKP (Goldmann stimulus III4e) and 1,844 deg(2) with ASP. The patients showed stable visual fields for both SKP and ASP. Comparison of SKP with ASP of the same sessions revealed a median ratio of intersection and union of VFA of 0.78 with the III4e stimulus and of 0.79 with the I4e stimulus. When follow-up SKPs were compared with baseline SKPs the median of the ratios was between 0.80 and 0.93 for the different isopters. The corresponding ratio of ASP's follow-up and baseline VFs was 0.81 (with the size III static stimulus). Nineteen of 20 patients preferred kinetic perimetry to static perimetry. CONCLUSIONS: The comparability between SKP and ASP is satisfactory and within the range of the test-retest reliability of ASP. SKP shows slightly better test-retest reliability than ASP. The majority of patients with advanced glaucomatous visual field loss prefer SKP instead of ASP. SKP is a valuable alternative to ASP in monitoring advanced glaucomatous visual field loss.     

The Groningen Longitudinal Glaucoma Study. II. A prospective comparison of frequency doubling perimetry,the GDx nerve fibre analyser and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma suspect patients

Purpose: We aimed to determine prospectively the incidence of abnormal test results on frequency doubling perimetry (FDT), the nerve fibre analyser (GDx) and standard automated perimetry (SAP) in a cohort of glaucoma suspect patients with normal findings for all these tests at baseline. Methods: Seventy glaucoma suspect patients were followed prospectively for 4 years with SAP (Humphrey field analyser 30‐2 SITA Fast), FDT (C‐20 full‐threshold) and GDx (Version 2.010) in a clinical setting. All patients had normal baseline test results on SAP, FDT and GDx. After the follow‐up period, the number of patients who converted (whose test results changed from normal at baseline to reproducibly abnormal during follow‐up) were counted for each technique and then compared. The cut‐off point for FDT was > 1 depressed test‐point p < 0.01 in the total deviation probability plot; the cut‐off point for GDx was the Number > 29. Results: Of the 70 glaucoma suspect patients, three converted on FDT, 14 on GDx and six on SAP. These proportions are significantly different for GDx versus SAP (p = 0.033) and GDx versus FDT (p = 0.002), but not for FDT versus SAP (p = 0.256). Conclusions: The most frequent finding after a 4‐year follow‐up was conversion on GDx.     

Graphical Analysis of Topographical Trends (GATT) in automated perimetry

The assessment of change in analysis of visual fields is one of the most difficult tasks in automated perimetry. A new, computerized method shows the original fields and the topographic trends in one easy graphic display. This new way of analysis the GATT superimposes the grayscale maps of two fields with a simple logic, producing the following patterns: all stable, unchanged areas are displayed normally; in changed areas, the grayscale of the first and the second field are mixed in the form of stripes. The contrast between the stripes indicates the amount of change. The orientation of the stripes depends on the direction of change: horizontal stripes mean deterioration, vertical stripes mean improvement. The GATT is also able to compare 4 fields, using the same patterns. In addition, a scatterboard without stripes indicates areas of high fluctuation, but without a significant change in the course of the 4 fields. The GATT enables a quick, quantitative judgement of the trends of visual fields.     

视网膜色素变性患者手术治疗45名

目的:评估视网膜色素变性患者的手术疗效。方法:对45名视网膜色素变性患者90眼进行手术治疗,术前和术后分别对这些患者进行了视锐度、自动视野计和三种视觉电生理指标(F-ERG、EOG和P-VEP)的检测。结果:术后3～22月,患者的视锐度得到了明显的改善,视野显著扩大,视野缺损减低。术前在90眼中有73眼(81.1%)的暗视F-ERG为熄灭型,在术后3～22月期间进行复查时,有些曾消失的F-ERG波复现,暗视F-ERG为熄灭型的眼下降至66(73.3%)只(P <0.05, t检验),一些原来残存的F-ERG波的波幅增加,峰潜伏期也缩短。EOG曲线变得更为弯曲,某些EOG的参数(如Arden比和G比值)也明显的增加(P <0.05, t检验)。用棋盘格翻转刺激中央6о视野时能够记录到P-VEP的患者数目,在45例中由术前的22例在术后增加到31例。这45例的残存P100波的平均振幅由术前的1.007μV增加到术后的2.236μV,有显著的统计学差异(P<0.005, t检验)。结论:手术治疗RP是有效和安全的,并能改善患者的视觉和阻止RP病程的发展。     

Clinical experiences with a semi-automated perimeter (Fieldmaster)

The perimeter Fieldmaster 101 has been applied to 178 eyes in comparison with a Tuebingen and a Goldmann perimeter. The Fieldmaster allows for a fast and relatively accurate screening test in the detection-phase of perimetry, independently of the skill of the perimetrist. This instrument missed only 2.6% of all pathological fields found by the Goldmann perimeter, and 10% of defective fields taken with the Tuebingen perimeter. In one third of the abnormal findings of the Fieldmaster the defects were even more realistic than in the plots of the Goldmann perimeter, as proven by the static and kinetic fields of the Tuebingen perimeter. The abilities of the Fieldmaster in the assessment-phase of perimetry are limited. Program-operated perimeters like the Fieldmaster are time-saving, but do not replace a perimetrist, especially in the psychological care of patients.Presented in part at the Wiesbadner Tagung of the German Ophthalmologists, Nov. 20th – 26th, 1978.     

Reaction time during semi‐automated kinetic perimetry (SKP) in patients with advanced visual field loss

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate reaction time (RT) in patients with advanced visual field (VF) loss using semi‐automated kinetic perimetry (SKP). Methods: Seventy‐eight patients with advanced VF loss caused by glaucoma (31) or retinitis pigmentosa (19), homonymous VF loss caused by post‐chiasmal lesions (18) and unilateral anterior ischaemic optic neuropathy (AION) (10) were examined with SKP (Octopus 101 perimeter). One eye in each patient was enrolled. Additionally, VFs in the 10 healthy fellow eyes of the patients with AION were compared with those in the 10 affected eyes. Reaction time was assessed during the SKP session by presenting kinetic stimuli (III4e) with constant angular velocities of 3 °/second moving linearly along so‐called ‘RT vectors’ at four different locations inside the III4e isoptre. Each stimulus presentation was repeated four times in randomized order. Results: The geometric mean RT was 794 ms (95% reference interval [RI] 391–1615 ms) in patients with glaucoma, 702 ms (95% RI 306–1608 ms) in patients with retinitis pigmentosa and 675 ms (95% RI 312–1460 ms) in patients with hemianopia. Increases in RT for every 1 ° of eccentricity were 1%, 0.9% and 0.4%, respectively. The geometric mean RT in the 10 patients with unilateral optic neuropathy was 644 ms in affected eyes and 435 ms in unaffected eyes, reflecting an increase of 51% (95% confidence interval 42–62%). Conclusions: We found substantial inter‐subject variability in RT in patients with advanced VF loss. It is possible to correct the position of the isoptres by assessing individual RT. There were no relevant differences in RT between the disease groups. Reaction time increases with eccentricity. In monocular disease (AION), RT is prolonged, compared with in healthy fellow eyes. However, in clinical routine the RT‐related displacement of isoptres is negligible in the vast majority of cases.