PURPOSE: To compare local cone and rod system function in patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP) using electrophysiological and psychophysical techniques. METHODS: Cone-mediated multifocal electroretinograms (M-ERGs), cone system threshold visual fields, rod-mediated M-ERGs, and rod system threshold visual fields were measured in seven patients with RP. RESULTS: All the patients had normal cone system visual field thresholds and normal cone-mediated M-ERG implicit times within the central 5 degrees. Both cone-mediated responses were abnormal at some peripheral retinal locations. There were significant correlations among cone system amplitude, timing, and visual field loss. All the patients had some retinal areas where the rod-mediated M-ERG amplitudes were not measurable. In areas where they were measurable, these rod-mediated M-ERG responses were often within normal limits for amplitude and timing. In contrast to the cone system data, there were no significant relationships between rod-mediated M-ERG measures and rod system threshold elevations. The cone and rod system psychophysical thresholds showed regional correspondence; the amplitude-scale and time-scale measures of the M-ERG did not. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that there was better local correspondence between psychophysical and electrophysiological measures in the cone system than in the rod system in patients with RP. In addition, the psychophysical measures of cone and rod system function showed better correspondence than did the electrophysiological measures.
PURPOSE: To compare local cone and rod system function in patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP) using electrophysiological and psychophysical techniques. METHODS: Cone-mediated multifocal electroretinograms (M-ERGs), cone system threshold visual fields, rod-mediated M-ERGs, and rod system threshold visual fields were measured in seven patients with RP. RESULTS: All the patients had normal cone system visual field thresholds and normal cone-mediated M-ERG implicit times within the central 5 degrees. Both cone-mediated responses were abnormal at some peripheral retinal locations. There were significant correlations among cone system amplitude, timing, and visual field loss. All the patients had some retinal areas where the rod-mediated M-ERG amplitudes were not measurable. In areas where they were measurable, these rod-mediated M-ERG responses were often within normal limits for amplitude and timing. In contrast to the cone system data, there were no significant relationships between rod-mediated M-ERG measures and rod system threshold elevations. The cone and rod system psychophysical thresholds showed regional correspondence; the amplitude-scale and time-scale measures of the M-ERG did not. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that there was better local correspondence between psychophysical and electrophysiological measures in the cone system than in the rod system in patients with RP. In addition, the psychophysical measures of cone and rod system function showed better correspondence than did the electrophysiological measures.
Authors: Stacey S Choi; Nathan Doble; Joseph L Hardy; Steven M Jones; John L Keltner; Scot S Olivier; John S Werner Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Avinash J Aher; Declan J McKeefry; Neil R A Parry; John Maguire; I J Murray; Tina I Tsai; Cord Huchzermeyer; Jan Kremers Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: Iryna A Falkenstein; Dirk-Uwe Bartsch; Stanley P Azen; Laurie Dustin; Alfredo A Sadun; William R Freeman Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2008-02-15 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Michael H Goldbaum; Irina Falkenstein; Igor Kozak; Jiucang Hao; Dirk-Uwe Bartsch; Terrance Sejnowski; William R Freeman Journal: Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc Date: 2008