{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01267605633802817, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005633802816901409, 'mean_word_length': 5.522935779816514, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Inter- and intraindividual sensitivity variations with manual and automated static perimeters.

Increment sensitivities in the monocular visual field were determined once in 10 different normal subjects by means of the Octopus, Humphrey, Perimat and Tübingen perimeters and 10 times in one single normal subject. Interindividual spread was greater than intraindividual spread; the spread augmented towards the periphery and in the superior quadrant of the visual field and was generally greater in automated perimetry than in manual Tübingen perimetry, especially in the region of the blind spot. Thus in our experience automated perimetry is not more precise than manual Tübingen perimetry in normal subjects.