Literature DB >> 11518460

A comparison of CRT and digital stimulus delivery methods in the multifocal ERG.

D Keating1, S Parks, C Malloch, A Evans.   

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to compare and evaluate the multifocal ERG response from raster based CRT and Digital Projection (LCD) stimulus delivery systems. A custom built p.c. based multifocal system was used to generate a 61 hexagonal element stimulus array. The stimulus was presented on a high luminance CRT display and on a back projected screen using a Digital polysilicon projection system. A fast response photodiode was used to analyse the stimulus pulse characteristics of both systems. A number of recordings were performed to assess the effect of stimulus delivery on a standard m-sequence response, inserted full-field filler response and on separation of onset and offset components. The pulse width for a CRT system is dependant on the type of phosphor and is typically 2 msec whereas the Digital Projection system produces a 13.3 msec pulse equivalent to the frame rate for the system. Slowing down the m-sequence by a factor of eight results in a pulse width of 106 msec which should enable the recovery of true offset responses. The CRT stimulus consists of a series of eight pulses of 2 msec duration each separated by 11.3 msec. First order responses are larger from the CRT system and second order responses larger from the Digital system. In conclusion, there are fundamental differences in the two delivery systems. The CRT system may have more potential in examining non-linear aspects of the multifocal response. Although both systems may be able to record offset responses, the Digital system will generate true offset responses whereas the CRT system may not allow true separation of these components.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11518460     DOI: 10.1023/a:1017527006572

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0012-4486            Impact factor:   2.379


  7 in total

1.  Topography of cone electrophysiology in the enhanced S cone syndrome.

Authors:  M F Marmor; F Tan; E E Sutter; M A Bearse
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 4.799

2.  The field topography of ERG components in man--I. The photopic luminance response.

Authors:  E E Sutter; D Tran
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  Multifocal rod electroretinograms.

Authors:  D C Hood; E J Wladis; S Shady; K Holopigian; J Li; W Seiple
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 4.799

4.  Functional imaging of the retina using the multifocal electroretinograph: a control study.

Authors:  S Parks; D Keating; T H Williamson; A L Evans; A T Elliott; J L Jay
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 4.638

5.  Recording multifocal electroretinogram on and off responses in humans.

Authors:  M Kondo; Y Miyake; M Horiguchi; S Suzuki; A Tanikawa
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 4.799

  7 in total
  4 in total

1.  The ON/OFF-response in retinopathy of prematurity subjects with myopia.

Authors:  Chi D Luu; Adrian H C Koh; Yvonne Ling
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2005 Mar-May       Impact factor: 2.379

2.  A comparison of the suitability of cathode ray tube (CRT) and liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors as visual stimulators in mfERG diagnostics.

Authors:  Christoph Kaltwasser; Folkert K Horn; Jan Kremers; Anselm Juenemann
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-10-25       Impact factor: 2.379

3.  Comparison of cathode ray tube and liquid crystal display stimulators for use in multifocal VEP.

Authors:  Marÿke Fox; Colin Barber; David Keating; Alan Perkins
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-07-02       Impact factor: 2.379

4.  Comparison of CRT and LCD monitors for objective estimation of visual acuity using the sweep VEP.

Authors:  Torsten Straßer; Denise Tara Leinberger; Dominic Hillerkuss; Eberhart Zrenner; Ditta Zobor
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 1.854

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.