Background: Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) error relative to intracameral intraocular pressure (IOP) has not been examined comparatively in both human cadaver eyes and in live human eyes. Futhermore, correlations to biomechanical corneal properties and positional changes have not been examined directly to intracameral IOP and GAT IOP. Methods: Intracameral IOP was measured via pressure transducer on fifty-eight (58) eyes undergoing cataract surgery and the IOP was modulated manometrically on each patient alternately to 10, 20, and 40 mmHg. IOP was measured using a Perkins tonometer in the supine position on 58 eyes and upright on a subset of 8 eyes. Twenty one (21) fresh human cadaver globes were Intracamerally IOP adjusted and measured via pressure transducer. Intracameral IOP ranged between 5 and 60 mmHg. IOP was measured in the upright position with a Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (GAT) and supine position with a Perkins tonometer. Central corneal thickness (CCT) was also measured. Results: The Goldmann-type tonometer error measured on live human eyes was 5.2 +/- 1.6 mmHg lower than intracameral IOP in the upright position and 7.9 +/- 2.3 mmHg lower in the supine position (p <.05). CCT also indicated a sloped correlation to error (correlation coeff. = 0.18). Cadaver eye IOP measurements were 3.1+/-2. 5 mmHg lower than intracameral IOP in the upright position and 5.4+/- 3.1 mmHg in the supine position (p <.05). Conclusion: Goldmann IOP measures significantly lower than true intracameral IOP by approximately 3 mmHg in vitro and 5 mmHg in vivo. The Goldmann IOP error is increased an additional 2.8 mmHg lower in the supine position. CCT appears to significantly affect the error by up to 4 mmHg over the sample size.

Orientador: Elide Rugai Bastos / Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciencias Humanas / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-04T00:52:31Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Faustino_JeanCarlo_M.pdf: 15529548 bytes, checksum: c865363afd158560499b8b280f7d2727 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2004 / Resumo: Este trabalho tem o propósito de realizar uma análise sociológica do romance "O Idiota" de Dostoiévski, escrito em 1868. Após uma revisão bibliográfica, a análise é apresentada em três diferentes momentos. No primeiro momento, é realizada uma verificação de como as estruturas sociais da época encontram-se presentes no romance. No segundo momento, é analisada a idéia central do romance e a separação entre essencial e acessório através da integração das partes ao todo. No terceiro e último momento, o resultado dessas duas partes da análise são resgatadas para se construir uma síntese que é contraposta ao pensamento de outros autores da época em que o romance foi elaborado / Abstract: This work intends to carry out a sociological analysis of Dostoevsky novel "The ldiot", written in 1868. After a bibliographical revision, the analysis is presented at three different stages. At the first moment, it is conducted a verification of how the current social structures are present at the nove!. Later, the novel's central idea and a separation between the essential and secondary are analysed through the integration of the parts of the whole. Finally, the result of these two parts is recovered in order to build a synthesis that confronted with to the thought of other authors of the time when the novel was written / Mestrado / Mestre em Ciências Sociais

Les XIXe et XXe siècles sont caractérisés comme des siècles de la critique. La plus grande partie de cette thèse porte sur l’analyse de la « Nouvelle Critique » en relation avec l’œuvre de Jean Racine. Ce mouvement critique qui a marqué les années soixante, s’intéresse plutôt aux structures sous-Jacentes qui peuvent être dégagées d’une œuvre littéraire.Les représentants de la Nouvelle Critique qui sont en principe, Lucien Goldmann, Charles Mauron et Roland Barthes dégagent de l’œuvre racinienne, chacun de sa propre façon, une structure de base. La critique sociologique de Goldmann, la psychocritique de Mauron et la critique structurale de Barthes offrent plusieurs pistes de réflexion.Présenter les méthodes proposées par la Nouvelle Critique, dégager l’essentiel de ses théories et apprécier leur valeur en démontrant la raison qui les a rendues fondamentales ainsi que comprendre la polémique déclenchée autour d’elle sont pour ce travail des tâches à accomplir. Or, cerner les enjeux de la « Nouvelle Critique » dans la critique racinienne en examinant les critiques faites par d’autres critiques constitue l’objectif de ce travail. / The nineteenth and twentieth centuries are characterized as centuries of literary criticism. The primary objective of this thesis will focus on the methodology used by “New Criticism” in relation to the work of Jean Racine. The New Criticism was a formalist movement, popular in the sixties, which focuses on objectively evaluating the underlying structure and text from literary work.Representatives of ‘‘New Criticism”, such as, Lucien Goldmann, Charles Mauron and Roland Barthes utilized structure methods to interpret Racine's literary works. The Sociological criticism of Goldmann, the Psychoanalytic criticism of Mauron, and the Structuralism of Barthes offer several areas of consideration.The aim of this study is to present the methods proposed by “New Criticism”, to reveal the essence of its theories, to assess their value by demonstrating the reason of their importance, and to understand controversy sparked around this formalist movement. So, identifying the “challenges of the ‘’New Criticism” in Racine’s criticism’’ by examining the criticisms made by other critics is the purpose of this work.

Les XIXe et XXe siècles sont caractérisés comme des siècles de la critique. La plus grande partie de cette thèse porte sur l’analyse de la « Nouvelle Critique » en relation avec l’œuvre de Jean Racine. Ce mouvement critique qui a marqué les années soixante, s’intéresse plutôt aux structures sous-Jacentes qui peuvent être dégagées d’une œuvre littéraire.Les représentants de la Nouvelle Critique qui sont en principe, Lucien Goldmann, Charles Mauron et Roland Barthes dégagent de l’œuvre racinienne, chacun de sa propre façon, une structure de base. La critique sociologique de Goldmann, la psychocritique de Mauron et la critique structurale de Barthes offrent plusieurs pistes de réflexion.Présenter les méthodes proposées par la Nouvelle Critique, dégager l’essentiel de ses théories et apprécier leur valeur en démontrant la raison qui les a rendues fondamentales ainsi que comprendre la polémique déclenchée autour d’elle sont pour ce travail des tâches à accomplir. Or, cerner les enjeux de la « Nouvelle Critique » dans la critique racinienne en examinant les critiques faites par d’autres critiques constitue l’objectif de ce travail. / The nineteenth and twentieth centuries are characterized as centuries of literary criticism. The primary objective of this thesis will focus on the methodology used by “New Criticism” in relation to the work of Jean Racine. The New Criticism was a formalist movement, popular in the sixties, which focuses on objectively evaluating the underlying structure and text from literary work.Representatives of ‘‘New Criticism”, such as, Lucien Goldmann, Charles Mauron and Roland Barthes utilized structure methods to interpret Racine's literary works. The Sociological criticism of Goldmann, the Psychoanalytic criticism of Mauron, and the Structuralism of Barthes offer several areas of consideration.The aim of this study is to present the methods proposed by “New Criticism”, to reveal the essence of its theories, to assess their value by demonstrating the reason of their importance, and to understand controversy sparked around this formalist movement. So, identifying the “challenges of the ‘’New Criticism” in Racine’s criticism’’ by examining the criticisms made by other critics is the purpose of this work.

Les XIXe et XXe siècles sont caractérisés comme des siècles de la critique. La plus grande partie de cette thèse porte sur l’analyse de la « Nouvelle Critique » en relation avec l’œuvre de Jean Racine. Ce mouvement critique qui a marqué les années soixante, s’intéresse plutôt aux structures sous-Jacentes qui peuvent être dégagées d’une œuvre littéraire.Les représentants de la Nouvelle Critique qui sont en principe, Lucien Goldmann, Charles Mauron et Roland Barthes dégagent de l’œuvre racinienne, chacun de sa propre façon, une structure de base. La critique sociologique de Goldmann, la psychocritique de Mauron et la critique structurale de Barthes offrent plusieurs pistes de réflexion.Présenter les méthodes proposées par la Nouvelle Critique, dégager l’essentiel de ses théories et apprécier leur valeur en démontrant la raison qui les a rendues fondamentales ainsi que comprendre la polémique déclenchée autour d’elle sont pour ce travail des tâches à accomplir. Or, cerner les enjeux de la « Nouvelle Critique » dans la critique racinienne en examinant les critiques faites par d’autres critiques constitue l’objectif de ce travail. / The nineteenth and twentieth centuries are characterized as centuries of literary criticism. The primary objective of this thesis will focus on the methodology used by “New Criticism” in relation to the work of Jean Racine. The New Criticism was a formalist movement, popular in the sixties, which focuses on objectively evaluating the underlying structure and text from literary work.Representatives of ‘‘New Criticism”, such as, Lucien Goldmann, Charles Mauron and Roland Barthes utilized structure methods to interpret Racine's literary works. The Sociological criticism of Goldmann, the Psychoanalytic criticism of Mauron, and the Structuralism of Barthes offer several areas of consideration.The aim of this study is to present the methods proposed by “New Criticism”, to reveal the essence of its theories, to assess their value by demonstrating the reason of their importance, and to understand controversy sparked around this formalist movement. So, identifying the “challenges of the ‘’New Criticism” in Racine’s criticism’’ by examining the criticisms made by other critics is the purpose of this work.