Literature DB >> 15957609

Methods of visual acuity determination with the spatial frequency sweep visual evoked potential.

William H Ridder1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The spatial frequency sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP) is used to rapidly determine visual acuity in children or non-responsive patients. Two techniques have been used to separate signal from noise: (1) the 95% confidence interval for the signal amplitude (95% CI) or (2) the amplitude of a Fourier frequency adjacent to 2x the signal frequency (DFT). The purpose of this study is to determine if there is a significant difference in acuity estimates with these techniques.
METHODS: Ten normal subjects (approximately 0.00 logMAR acuity) and 11 patients with decreased visual acuity took part in this project. Stimulus production and data analysis were done with an Enfant 4010 (Neuroscientific Corp). Standard VEP recording techniques were employed. The stimulus was a horizontal-oriented, sine wave grating that swept up the spatial frequency spectrum (contrast 80%, temporal reversal rate 7.5 Hz). Sweeps were repeated until the confidence intervals for the data were no longer decreasing. The Bailey Lovie logMAR chart was used to determine visual acuity. A line was fit to the high spatial frequency data using either the 95% CI or the DFT as the noise estimate. By using these linear equations, acuity estimates were obtained at 0, 1, and 2 microV signal amplitudes.
RESULTS: The average logMAR acuity for the subjects with normal acuity was -0.06 +/- 0.070 (SD). The sVEP acuity estimates were 0.08 +/- 0.098, 0.18 +/- 0.092, and 0.33 +/- 0.195 (0, 1, and 2 microV extrapolations) with the 95% CI used as noise and 0.07 +/- 0.100, 0.18 +/- 0.103, and 0.33 +/- 0.202 (0, 1, and 2 microV extrapolations) with the DFT used as noise. By using the average noise from the Fourier frequency as the extrapolation level, the acuity was 0.10 +/- 0.098 logMAR. The average logMAR acuity for the subjects with decreased visual acuity was 0.67 +/- 0.306 (SD). The sVEP acuity estimates were 0.53 +/- 0.175, 0.66 +/- 0.171, and 0.88 +/- 0.295 (0, 1, and 2 microV extrapolations) with the 95% CI used as noise and 0.53 +/- 0.179, 0.65 +/- 0.176, and 0.86 +/- 0.268 (0, 1, and 2 microV extrapolations) with the DFT used as noise. By using the average noise from the Fourier frequency as the extrapolation level, the acuity was 0.57 +/- 0.186 logMAR. No significant difference was found between the two acuity estimate techniques for all of the subjects (repeated measures ANOVA, p = 0.16, F20 = 2.131). The sVEP estimates of acuity to the 0 microV and noise levels were not significantly different from the logMAR acuity (paired t-test, all p values > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the sVEP acuity does not depend on the noise estimation technique. In agreement with prior studies, the sVEP acuity underestimates the logMAR acuity in normally sighted individuals by about an octave.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15957609     DOI: 10.1007/s10633-004-8053-7

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


  14 in total

1.  Stimulus duration, neural adaptation, and sweep visual evoked potential acuity estimates.

Authors:  W H Ridder; D McCulloch; A M Herbert
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 4.799

2.  On the statistical reliability of letter-chart visual acuity measurements.

Authors:  A Arditi; R Cagenello
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 4.799

3.  Spatial frequency sweep VEP: visual acuity during the first year of life.

Authors:  A M Norcia; C W Tyler
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  Comparison of measures of visual acuity in infants: Teller acuity cards and sweep visual evoked potentials.

Authors:  P M Riddell; B Ladenheim; J Mast; T Catalano; R Nobile; L Hainline
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 1.973

5.  Visual acuity in unilateral cataract.

Authors:  D A Thompson; H Møller; I Russell-Eggitt; A Kriss
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 4.638

6.  Visual acuity and the essentiality of docosahexaenoic acid and arachidonic acid in the diet of term infants.

Authors:  E E Birch; D R Hoffman; R Uauy; D G Birch; C Prestidge
Journal:  Pediatr Res       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 3.756

7.  Comparison of Snellen acuity and objective assessment using the spatial frequency sweep PVER.

Authors:  M Arai; O Katsumi; F R Paranhos; J M Lopes De Faria; T Hirose
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 3.117

8.  Infant VEP acuity measurements: analysis of individual differences and measurement error.

Authors:  A M Norcia; C W Tyler
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1985-11

9.  Visual acuity measurements by swept spatial frequency visual-evoked-cortical potentials (VECPs): clinical application in children with various visual disorders.

Authors:  I Gottlob; M G Fendick; S Guo; A A Zubcov; J V Odom; R D Reinecke
Journal:  J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus       Date:  1990 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.402

10.  Visual acuity development in normal and abnormal preterm human infants.

Authors:  A M Norcia; C W Tyler; R Piecuch; R Clyman; J Grobstein
Journal:  J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus       Date:  1987 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.402

View more
  17 in total

1.  Reliability of acuities determined with the sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP).

Authors:  William H Ridder; Anna Tong; Theresa Floresca
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 2.379

2.  A new method of extrapolating the sweep pattern visual evoked potential acuity.

Authors:  Peng Zhou; Ming-Wei Zhao; Xiao-Xin Li; Xiao-Feng Hu; Xi Wu; Lan-Jun Niu; Wen-Zhen Yu; Xiu-Lan Xu
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2007-10-31       Impact factor: 2.379

3.  Spatial contrast sensitivity in adolescents with autism spectrum disorders.

Authors:  Hwan Cui Koh; Elizabeth Milne; Karen Dobkins
Journal:  J Autism Dev Disord       Date:  2010-08

4.  A comparison of contrast sensitivity and sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP) acuity estimates in normal humans.

Authors:  William H Ridder
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-08-14       Impact factor: 2.379

5.  Objective assessment of visual acuity: a refined model for analyzing the sweep VEP.

Authors:  Torsten Strasser; Fadi Nasser; Hana Langrová; Ditta Zobor; Łukasz Lisowski; Dominic Hillerkuss; Carla Sailer; Anne Kurtenbach; Eberhart Zrenner
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-01-29       Impact factor: 2.379

6.  A comparison of the performance of three visual evoked potential-based methods to estimate visual acuity.

Authors:  Anne Kurtenbach; Hana Langrová; Andre Messias; Eberhart Zrenner; Herbert Jägle
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-11-11       Impact factor: 2.379

7.  Conducting shorter VEP tests to estimate visual acuity via assessment of SNR.

Authors:  Kartik K Iyer; Andrew P Bradley; Stephen J Wilson
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-10-26       Impact factor: 2.379

8.  Comparing enfant and PowerDiva sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP) acuity estimates.

Authors:  William H Ridder; Bradley S Waite; Timothy F Melton
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-08-24       Impact factor: 2.379

9.  Visual evoked potential-based acuity assessment: overestimation in amblyopia.

Authors:  Yaroslava Wenner; Sven P Heinrich; Christina Beisse; Antje Fuchs; Michael Bach
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-03-13       Impact factor: 2.379

10.  A novel and cheap method to correlate subjective and objective visual acuity by using the optokinetic response.

Authors:  Carlo Aleci; Martina Scaparrotti; Sabrina Fulgori; Lorenzo Canavese
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-09-19       Impact factor: 2.031

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.