Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Calculation of central visual field sensitivity.

Total deviation values (TDn) of central 12 points (out of 54 points) are unlogged, averaged, and finally logged again to transform back to the decibel scale.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of the healthy and glaucomatous subjects.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Scatter plots showing relationship between ganglion cell/inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) thickness and pattern electroretinogram N95 amplitude (PERGamp) in entire study sample.

Three different regression models applied; (A) broken stick model (B) linear regression model (C) quadratic regression model. The best fit model for GCIPL thickness and PERGamp was linear regression model (r2 = 0.220, P < <0.001, AIC = 588.7).

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Scatter plots showing relationship of central visual field sensitivities (VFcenter) (A, B, C) or visual field mean deviation (VFMD) (D, E, F) with ganglion cell/inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) thickness in entire study sample. Three regression models were applied (broken stick model / linear regression mode / quadratic regression model respectively from left to right). For the GCIPL thickness and VFcenter, broken stick model was best fitted model with significant tipping point (Davies’ test P < 0.001) where the location was 71.9 μm. The broken stick model was best fitting model for the GCIPL thickness and VFMD among the three different regression models. The tipping point was significant (Davies’ test P < 0.001) where the location was 72.1 μm. VFcenter visual field centeral sensitivity, VFMD visual field mean deviation, GCIPL ganglion cell/ inner plexiform layer.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 2.

The relationship between ganglion cell/inner plexiform layer thickness and pattern electroretinogram amplitude or central visual field central sensitivities or mean deviation by regression models.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Pearson’s correlation coefficient for structural and functional measures in normal subjects (n = 66 eyes).

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Pearson’s or Spearman’s correlation coefficient for structural and functional measures in patients with early glaucoma (n = 44 eyes).

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Pearson’s or Spearman’s correlation coefficient for structural and functional measures in patients with advanced glaucoma (n = 30 eyes).

More »

Table 5 Expand