OBJECTIVES: We previously developed a new method for estimating objective visual acuity by means of pattern visual evoked potentials (PVEP). In this study, this method was applied to the diagnosis of malingering. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six patients ranging in age from 40 to 54 years (mean 47 years) with suspected malingering were evaluated by means of the visual evoked potential test, optokinetic nystagmus (OKN) inhibition test, and the visual field test. In the PVEP study, the stimulus consisted of black and white checkerboards (39', 26', 15', and 9') with a visual angle of 8 degrees, contrast level of 15%, and a frequency of 0.7 Hz. One hundred PVEP responses were averaged per session. RESULTS: Routine ophthalmic examinations were normal in all patients. Five patients had a tubularly constricted visual field, and the remaining patient had a normal visual field. The objective visual acuities of the six patients estimated from PVEP were better than their subjective visual acuities estimated with Landolt rings. CONCLUSIONS: Among a variety of psychophysical and electrophysiologic ancillary tests, we consider our PVEP method a useful method for objectively determining visual acuity in a patient with signs of ocular malingering.
OBJECTIVES: We previously developed a new method for estimating objective visual acuity by means of pattern visual evoked potentials (PVEP). In this study, this method was applied to the diagnosis of malingering. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six patients ranging in age from 40 to 54 years (mean 47 years) with suspected malingering were evaluated by means of the visual evoked potential test, optokinetic nystagmus (OKN) inhibition test, and the visual field test. In the PVEP study, the stimulus consisted of black and white checkerboards (39', 26', 15', and 9') with a visual angle of 8 degrees, contrast level of 15%, and a frequency of 0.7 Hz. One hundred PVEP responses were averaged per session. RESULTS: Routine ophthalmic examinations were normal in all patients. Five patients had a tubularly constricted visual field, and the remaining patient had a normal visual field. The objective visual acuities of the six patients estimated from PVEP were better than their subjective visual acuities estimated with Landolt rings. CONCLUSIONS: Among a variety of psychophysical and electrophysiologic ancillary tests, we consider our PVEP method a useful method for objectively determining visual acuity in a patient with signs of ocular malingering.
Authors: Ruth Hamilton; Michael S Bradnam; Gordon N Dutton; Anna L Lai Chooi Yan; Tim E Lavy; I Livingstone; Alison M Mackay; Jane R Mackinnon Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2012-12-01 Impact factor: 2.379