Objective: To develop a method for comparing multifocal visual-evoked potenti al (mfVEP) responses and behaviorally determined visual fields with structural m easures of the optic nerve head. Methods: Humphrey 24-2 visual fields and mfVEP s were obtained from each eye of 20 patients with open angle glaucoma. Monocular and interocular analyses were performed to identify locations with abnormal mfV EP responses. Optic discs were assessed with a confocal scanning laser ophthalmo scope (Heidelberg Retina Tomograph II). The image of the optic nerve head was di vided into 6 sectors. The rim and disc area measurements for each sector were co mpared with those in a normal database using Moorfields regression analysis. The optic nerve head measurements for the 6 sectors were related to the Humphrey vi sual field locations and the 60 sectors of the mfVEP display. Results: Of 240 se ctors tested (40 eyes×6 sectors), 18.8%on Humphrey visual field, 22.1%on mfVE P, and 10.8%on confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopic testing were significant ly different from those of control subjects. There were no significant deficits in 165 sectors. There was agreement for 86.7%of the sectors when the Humphrey v isual field and mfVEP results were compared. The confocal scanning laser ophthal moscopic results were in agreement for 84.6%of these sectors. Conclusions: The method used allows for a comparison among measures of visual function and a stru ctural measure of the optic nerve head. In general, the results of the functiona l and structural measures showed agreement;however, there were clear examples of disagreements that merit further study. Objective: To develop a method for comparing multifocal visual-evoked potentials (mfVEP) responses and behaviorally determined determined visual fields with structural m easures of the optic nerve head. Methods: Humphrey 24-2 visual fields and mfVEP s were obtained from each eye of 20 patients with open angle glaucoma. Monocular and interocular analyzes were performed to identify locations with abnormal mfV EP responses. Optic discs were assessed with a confocal scanning laser ophthalmo scope (Heidelberg Retina Tomograph II). The image of the optic nerve head was di vided into 6 sectors. The rim and disc area measurements for each sector were co mpared with those in a normal database using Moorfields regression analysis. The optic nerve head measurements for the 6 sectors were related to the Humphrey vi sual field locations and the 60 sectors of Results: Of 240 se ctors tested (40 eyes × 6 sectors), 18.8% on Humphrey visual field, 22.1% on mfVE P, and 10.8% on confocal scanning las There was no agreement for 86.7% of the sectors when the Humphrey v isual field and mfVEP results were compared. The confocal scanning laser ophthal moscopic results were in agreement for 84.6% of these sectors. Conclusions: The method used allows for comparison between measures of visual function and a stru ctural measure of the optic nerve head. In general, the results of the functiona l and structural measures showed showed; however, there were clear examples of disagreements that merit further study.