The 4th International Visual Field Symposium of the International Perimetric Society, was held on the 13-16 April 1980 in Bristol, England,at the occasion of the 6th Congress of the European Society of Ophthalmology. The main themes of the symposium were comparison of classical perimetry with visual evoked response, comparison of classical perimetry with special psychophysi- cal methods, and optic nerve pathology. Understandably many papers dealt with computer assisted perimetry. This rapidly developing subgroup of peri- metry may radically change the future of our method of examination. New instruments were introduced, new and exciting software was proposed and the results of comparative investigations reported. There have been many confusing statements in the literature on the relative value of perimetry and the registration of visual evoked responses. Several reports attempted to bring some clarity in this issue. There is reason for further comparative research. A number of papers dealt with special psychophysical methods, i.e. methods not using the simply monocular differential threshold. The old critical fusion frequency received new attention. Fundusperimetry was used for testing spatial summation. Acuity perimetry, binocular perimetry etc. showed that there exist many possibilities for examining visual function. At present it is not clear to us what exactly the place of these methods is in our diagnostic armament. However it is quite clear that some of them are promising and may lead to a further differentiation of perimetric methods.

The 4th International Visual Field Symposium of the International Perimetric Society, was held on the 13-16 April 1980 in Bristol, England,at the occasion of the 6th Congress of the European Society of Ophthalmology. The main themes of the symposium were comparison of classical perimetry with visual evoked response, comparison of classical perimetry with special psychophysi- cal methods, and optic nerve pathology. Understandably many papers dealt with computer assisted perimetry. This rapidly developing subgroup of peri- metry may radically change the future of our method of examination. New instruments were introduced, new and exciting software was proposed and the results of comparative investigations reported. There have been many confusing statements in the literature on the relative value of perimetry and the registration of visual evoked responses. Several reports attempted to bring some clarity in this issue. There is reason for further comparative research. A number of papers dealt with special psychophysical methods, i.e. methods not using the simply monocular differential threshold. The old critical fusion frequency received new attention. Fundusperimetry was used for testing spatial summation. Acuity perimetry, binocular perimetry etc. showed that there exist many possibilities for examining visual function. At present it is not clear to us what exactly the place of these methods is in our diagnostic armament. However it is quite clear that some of them are promising and may lead to a further differentiation of perimetric methods.