PURPOSE. To investigate the effect of perimetrists' instructions on automat
ed perimetry thresholds.
METHODS. Eighteen volunteers in two age groups participated in a series of
three test sessions. Each session consisted of a Humphrey Field Analyzer 30
-2 test, a questionnaire, and a customized test program using a Humphrey pe
rimeter to construct frequency of seeing (FOS) curves from which thresholds
were calculated, and a descriptive measure of response criterion was deriv
ed. The FOS curves were obtained at a central and a peripheral test locatio
n within the same test session. The three test sessions differed only by th
e instructions given. The instructions were adapted from those listed in th
e manufacturer's instruction manual and were designed to influence particip
ants to respond to the stimuli in a conservative, Liberal, or neutral manne
r.
RESULTS. For the 30-2 threshold test, a significant difference in mean devi
ation was found among the three instruction types (P = 0.001) and between t
he two age groups (P = 0.001). Although differences were small in the young
er subjects (2.04 dB), the means for the responses from liberal to conserva
tive differed by 6.57 dB in the older subjects. Thresholds obtained in a pe
ripheral location by the customized threshold test were found to differ sig
nificantly between the age groups (younger group mean, 31.0 dB; older group
mean, 27.2 dB) and among the instruction types (liberal mean, 30.9 dB; con
servative mean, 28.1 dB; and neutral mean, 30.3 dB; P < 0.001). The descrip
tive measurement of response criterion suggests that a difference in criter
ia occurred as a result of the instructions in both peripheral and central
locations for both age groups (P = 0.0001). In addition, according to self-
reports, liberal instructions caused participants to be more likely to resp
ond, whereas the conservative instructions caused them to be more reluctant
to respond.
CONCLUSIONS. Perimetrists' instructions can significantly affect obtained a
utomated perimetry thresholds.