Methods for investigation of central department of a visual analyzer

Bibliography:
1. Kolesnikov AV, Sokolov VA, Kolesnikova MA, et al. Anatomy of the organ of vision. Ryazan: OTS i OP, 2018; 70 p.
2. Schmidt RF, Thews G. General and special sensory physiology. In: Human physiology. 2nd ed. Moscow: Mir, 1996; vol. 1, p. 178-321.
3. Koskin SA. Modern objective methods of visometry for the purpose of medical examination. Bulletin of the Russian Military Medical Academy 2007; 20 (4): 53-60.
4. Rosa AFM. Neuroadaptation after cataract and refractive surgery: DSc diss. Coimbra, 2017; 158 p.
5. Fomina OV. A new method for assessing the visual functions of patients after implantation of multifocal intraocular lenses: PhD diss. Moscow, 2021; 218 p.
6. Kopaeva VG. Eye diseases: Textbook. Moscow: Meditsina, 2008; 249 p.
7. Rozhkova Gl, BelozerovAE, Lebedev DS. Measurement of visual acuity: ambiguity of the influence of low-frequency components of the Fourier spectrum of optotypes. Sensory Systems Journal 2012; 26 (2): 160-71.
8. Volkov VV, Kolesnikova LN, Shelepin YuE. Frequency contrast characteristics and visual acuity in ophthalmic practice. Russian Ophthalmological Journal 1983; (3): 148-51.
9. Anstice NS, Thompson В. The measurement of visual acuity in children: an evidence-based update. Clin Exp Optometry 2014; 97(1): 3-11.
10. Shah N, Dakin SC, Dobinson S, et al. Visual acuity loss in patients with age-related macular degeneration measured using a novel high-pass letter chart. Br J Ophthalmol 2016; 100 (10): 1346-52.
11. Rozhkova G, Lebedev D, Gracheva M, Rychkova S. Optimal optotype structure for monitoring visual acuity. J Latvian Acad Sci 2017; 71 (5): 20-30.
12. Rozhkova Gl, Malykh ТВ. Modern aspects of visometry standardization. Aerospace and Environmental Medicine 2017; 51 (6): 5-16.
13. Gracheva MA, Kazakova АА, Pokrovskiy DF, Medvedev IB. Tables for assessing visual acuity: analytical overview, basic terms. Annals of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences 2019; 74 (3): 176-83.
14. Bondarko VM. Visual acuity and crowding effect in adults and children of different ages. In: Neurotechnologies: collective monograph. St. Petersburg: Izd-vo VVM, 2018; p. 46-116.
15. Frisen L. Vanishing optotypes: New type of acuity test letters. Arch Ophthalmol 1986; 104 (8): 1194-8.
16. Frisen L. Clinical Tests of Vision. New York: NY Raven Press, 1990; 222 p.
17. Hamm LM, Yeoman JP, Anstice NS, et al. The Auckland optotypes: an open-access pictogram set for measuring recognition acuity. J Vis 2018; 18 (3): 13.
18. Koskin SA. System for determining visual acuity for the purpose of medical examination: DSc abstract. St. Petersburg, 2009; 48 p.
19. Adoh ТО, Woodhouse JM. The Cardiff acuity test used for measuring visual acuity development in toddlers. Vision Res 2003; 34 (4): 555-60.
20. Campbell FW, Green DG. Optical and retinal factors affecting visual resolution. J Physiol Lond 1965; 181: 576-93.
21. Campbell FW, Robson JO Application of Fourier analysis to the visibility of gratings. J Physiol 1968; 197: 551-66.
22. Belozerov AE. Theoretical evaluation of three-band stimuli as optotypes for measuring visual acuity in comparison with Gabor elements. Sensory Systems Journal 2013; 27 (2): 108-21.
23. Shamshinova AM, Volkov VV. Functional research methods in ophthalmology. Moscow: Meditsina, 2004; 432 p.
24. Slobodyanyk SB. Automated Static Perimetry for diagnostics of visual field defects in glaucoma. J Ophthalmol (Ukraine) 2019; (1): 65-72.
25. Kolbanov VV Dynamic characteristics of the field of view. St. Petersburg: DEAN, 2010; 288 p.
26. Weinreb R, Greve Е. Progression of Glaucoma: the 8th consensus report of the world glaucoma association. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Kugler Publications, 2011; 170 p.
27. Stoyanova SG, Egorova EL, Gurov AS. Comparative characteristics of kinetic and static perimetry in inpatient and outpatient practice in patients with glaucoma. Russian Journal of Clinical Ophthalmology 2002; 3 (2): 65-7.
28. Johnson СА. Psychophysical factors that have been applied to clinical perimetry. Vision Res 2013; 90: 25-31.
29. Serdyukova SA. Comparative characteristics of computer perimetry methods for the diagnosisand monitoring of glaucoma: PhD abstract. St. Petersburg, 2018; 23 p.
30. Simakova IL, Serdyukova SA. Some aspects of the comparative characteristics of different methods of computer perimetry. Ophthalmology Journal 2015; 8 (2): 5-9.
31. Simakova IL. Perimetry with doubled spatial frequency as the basis for glaucoma screening and monitoring of the glaucomatous process: DSc abstract. St. Petersburg, 2010; 46 p.
32. Hirasawa К, Shoji N. Learning effect and repeatability of automated kinetic perimetry in healthy participants. Curr Eye Res 2014; 39 (9): 928-37.
33. Centofanti M, Fogagnolo P, Oddone F. Learning effect of Humphrey Matrix Frequency Doubling Technology perimetry in patients with ocular hypertension. Glaucoma 2008; 17 (6): 436-41.
34. Kazaykin VN. The current role and prospects of electrophysiological research methods in ophthalmology: Literature review. Ophthalmology in Russia 2020; 17 (4): 669-75.
35. Zolnikova IV, Chudin AV, Egorova IV Multifocal visual evoked potentials in diagnostic practice. Russian Ophthalmological Journal 2013; 6 (3): 99-105.
36. Rosolen SG, Kolomiets В, Varela О, Picaud S. Retinal electrophysiology for toxicology studies: applications and limits of ERG in animals and ex vivo recordings. Exp Toxicol Pathol 2008; 60: 17-32.
37. Marmor MF, Kellner U, Lai TY, et al. Revised recommendations on screening for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine retinopathy. Ophthalmology 2011; 118 (2): 415-22.
38. Michaelides M, Stover NB, Francis PJ, Weleber RG. Retinal toxicity associated with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine: risk factors, screening, and progression despite cessation of therapy. Arch Ophthalmol 2011; 129 (1): 30-9.
39. Baseler HA, Sutter ЕЕ, Klein SA, et al. The topography of visual evoked response properties across the visual field. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1994; 90: 65-81.
40. Sutter ЕЕ. Noninvasive Testing Methods: Multifocal Electrophysiology. In: Dartt DA, ed. Encyclopedia of the Eye. Oxford: Academic Press, 2010; vol. 3, p. 142-60.
41. Renner AB, Kellner U, Tillack H, et al. Recording of both VEP and multifocal ERG for evaluation of unexplained visual loss. Doc Ophthalmol 2005; 111: 149-57.
42. Klistorner A, Fraser C, Garrick R, et al. Correlation between full-field and multifocal VEPs in optic neuritis. Doc Ophthalmol 2008; 116: 19-27.
43. Ogawa S, Tank DW, Menon R, et al. Intrinsic signal changes accompanying sensory stimulation: functional brain mapping with magnetic resonance imaging. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1992; 89: 5951-5.
44. Menshikova SV, Trufanov GE, Fokin VA, et al. Functional state of visual analyzer current understanding of methods of its evaluation and application of functional magnetic resonance imaging. Bulletin of the Russian Military Medical Academy 2013; 44 (4): 236-40.
45. Fokin VA. Localization of areas of the human cerebral cortex activated during the perception of ordered and chaotic images. Russian Journal of Physiology 2007; 93 (10): 1089-100.
46. Yucel YH, Zhang Q, Weinreb RN, et al. Effects of retinal ganglion cell loss on magno-, parvo-, koniocellular pathways in the lateral geniculate nucleus and visual cortex in glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res 2003; 22: 465-81.
47. Crawford ML, Harwerth RS, Smith EL, et al. Experimental glaucoma in primates: changes in cytochrome oxidase blobs in V1. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 42: 358-64.