ABSTRACT In the last years, the agricultural systems based on Crop-Livestock-Forestry integration have emerged as a potential solution due to its capacity to maximize land use and reduces the effects of high temperatures on the animals. Within these systems, there exist an interest in technological solutions capable of monitor the animals in real-time. From this monitoring, one of the main interest is to know if an animal is in the sun or in the shade of a tree by using some environmental measures. However, as there is a possibility that the weather is cloudy, real-time monitoring also needs to identify this case. That is, the real-time monitoring also needs to differentiate the shade of a tree from a cloudy weather. The interest in this kind of monitoring is due to the fact that an animal that remains a long time under a shade of a tree provides substantial insights to indicate if this is in thermal stress. This information can be used in decision-making with the goal to reduce the impact of the thermal stress and consequently to provide welfare to the animal and reduces the financial losses. As a solution to identify if an animal is in the sun or in the shade of a tree or if the weather is cloudy, we developed an electronic device, used to capture values of environmental variables, which integrated with a mathematical model predicts the shade state (sun, shade or cloudy) where the animal can be found. We illustrate the performance of the proposed solution in a real data set.

Objetivo: Analisar os resultados de um estudo comparativo entre as estratégias dinâmica e normal utilizando o perí-metro Octopus 1-2-3. Métodos: Utilizando o Octopus 1-2-3 nas estratégias dinâmica e normal foi realizada a perimetria automatizada em 24 pacientes glaucomatosos (8 homens e 16 mulheres) com uma média de intervalo entre os 2 exames de 6 meses. Todos pacientes já haviam sido previamente submetidos a pelo menos um exame de perimetria automatizada no Octopus 1-2-3. Os dados comparados, para ambos os olhos, foram: a idade do paciente, número de estímulos, sensibilidade média (MS), defeito médio (MD), perda localizada (LV), flutuação em curto prazo (SF) e o fator de confiabilidade (RF). Na análise estatística, utilizando o teste t pareado, somente os campos visuais com RF menor que 10 foram incluídos. O nível de significância foi igual a 5% (p < 0,05). Resultados: Não houve diferença estatisticamente significativa entre as duas estratégias em relação à idade, LV, SF e RF. Entretanto, houve diferença estatisticamente significativa na duração do teste, número de estímulos, MS e MD. A estratégia dinâmica mostrou uma sensibilidade difusa maior e um menor defeito médio quando comparada à estratégia normal. Conclusões: Nossos resultados indicam que os valores dos limiares medidos pela estratégia dinâmica estão em concordância com os valores obtidos utilizando a estratégia normal nos pacientes portadores ou suspeitos de glaucoma, cujos campos visuais estão normais ou limítrofes. Estes resultados também confirmam a redução na duração do exame. Também sugerem que, quando compararmos campos visuais realizados com a estratégia dinâmica com aqueles realizados com a estratégia normal, é necessária cautela em relação aos valores do MS e MD.

Purpose: To show the results of a comparative study between dynamic and normal strategies with Octopus 1-2-3. Methods: Automatic perimetry using the Octopus 1-2-3 with dynamic and normal strategies was performed on 24 glaucomatous patients (eight males and 16 females) within an average interval of six months between the two exams. All patients had previously submitted to at least one automatic perimetry with the Octopus 1-2-3. The data compared, for both eyes, were: the patient's age, number of questions, mean sensitivity (MS), mean defect (MD), loss variance (LV), short-term fluctuation (SF) and the reliability factor (RF). In the statistical analyses through the paired t test, only the visual fields with RF less than 10 were included. The level of significance was equal to 5% (p < 0.05). Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the two strategies in relation to age, LV, SF and RF. However, there was statistically significant differences in the duration of the test, number of questions, MS and MD. The dynamic strategy showed a higher diffuse sensitivity and a lower mean defect than the normal strategy. Conclusions: Our results show that the threshold values measured by the dynamic strategy were in close agreement with the values obtained using the normal strategy in patients who have, or are suspected of having, glaucoma and whose visual fields are normal or borderline. They also confirm the claimed reduction in testing time. These results also suggest that, when comparing a visual field exam performed with the dynamic strategy to one performed with a normal strategy, it is necessary to be cautious in regard to MS and MD values.