The authors compared false negative rates for full threshold (FULL) and Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) standard automated perimetry in healthy control subjects and glaucoma patients. Twenty-four subjects underwent visual field testing of one eye five times within six weeks (19 glaucoma and five controls) with 24-2 FULL and SITA standard perimetry. They obtained false negative response procedures that presented stimuli at nine dB greater than a previously determined threshold value at specific locations (FULL) and up to 20 dB greater than the threshold for SITA. Their results showed that the percentage of false negatives was almost twice as high with FULL testing compared with the two SITA analyses. The authors felt that this may be related to the SITA method of testing for false negatives in relatively normal areas as opposed to any location (even if it has low sensitivity) with FULL due also to high variability in damaged areas or pathologic variations.