Michael B Hoffmann1, Johann-Joachim Flechner. 1. Visual Processing Laboratory, Universitäts-Augenklinik, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120 Magdeburg, Germany. michael.hoffmann@med.ovgu.de
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The use of the multifocal pattern electroretinogram (mfPERG) for objective visual field testing is critically impaired by the small signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) obtained. In order to explore ways to enhance mfPERG-SNRs and mfPERG-magnitude, the dependence of mfPERGs and multifocal visual evoked potentials (mfVEPs) on stimulation rate and stimulation mode is examined. METHODS: Using VERIS Science 5.1.10X (EDI, CA, USA) mfPERGs and mfVEPs were recorded simultaneously in two different experiments to stimulation at 52 locations comprising a visual field of 44 degrees diameter. Firstly, in eight subjects the response magnitudes were compared for three pattern-reversal (PR) and two pattern-onset (PO) stimulus conditions, which differed in their maximal stimulation rate. Secondly, for equal recording durations the signal-to-noise-ratios (SNRs) of four PR stimuli with different stimulation rates were determined in eight subjects. RESULTS: Both mfPERG and mfVEP response magnitudes were substantially enhanced for the lower stimulation rates. The greatest effects were obtained for the mfPERG-N95 to pattern-reversal stimulation, which was by a factor of 5.2+/-0.6 greater than that N95 for the standard condition (p<0.001). mfPERGs for a comparatively low stimulation rate, i.e., reversing its contrast with a probability of 50% only every 53 ms, yielded the greatest SNRs (1.42-fold greater than for the standard condition; p<or=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The enhancement of both mfPERG and mfVEP response magnitudes for slow stimulation suggests that retinal mechanisms contribute to this response enhancement and that slow pattern-reversal stimulation might facilitate simultaneous high-resolution mfPERG- and mfVEP-based visual field testing. SIGNIFICANCE: The study suggests that mfPERG-based assessment of retinal ganglion cell function can be improved with stimulation sequences that are 2-4 times slower than the standard multifocal stimulus.
OBJECTIVE: The use of the multifocal pattern electroretinogram (mfPERG) for objective visual field testing is critically impaired by the small signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) obtained. In order to explore ways to enhance mfPERG-SNRs and mfPERG-magnitude, the dependence of mfPERGs and multifocal visual evoked potentials (mfVEPs) on stimulation rate and stimulation mode is examined. METHODS: Using VERIS Science 5.1.10X (EDI, CA, USA) mfPERGs and mfVEPs were recorded simultaneously in two different experiments to stimulation at 52 locations comprising a visual field of 44 degrees diameter. Firstly, in eight subjects the response magnitudes were compared for three pattern-reversal (PR) and two pattern-onset (PO) stimulus conditions, which differed in their maximal stimulation rate. Secondly, for equal recording durations the signal-to-noise-ratios (SNRs) of four PR stimuli with different stimulation rates were determined in eight subjects. RESULTS: Both mfPERG and mfVEP response magnitudes were substantially enhanced for the lower stimulation rates. The greatest effects were obtained for the mfPERG-N95 to pattern-reversal stimulation, which was by a factor of 5.2+/-0.6 greater than that N95 for the standard condition (p<0.001). mfPERGs for a comparatively low stimulation rate, i.e., reversing its contrast with a probability of 50% only every 53 ms, yielded the greatest SNRs (1.42-fold greater than for the standard condition; p<or=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The enhancement of both mfPERG and mfVEP response magnitudes for slow stimulation suggests that retinal mechanisms contribute to this response enhancement and that slow pattern-reversal stimulation might facilitate simultaneous high-resolution mfPERG- and mfVEP-based visual field testing. SIGNIFICANCE: The study suggests that mfPERG-based assessment of retinal ganglion cell function can be improved with stimulation sequences that are 2-4 times slower than the standard multifocal stimulus.
Authors: Mário L R Monteiro; Kenzo Hokazono; Leonardo P Cunha; Maria K Oyamada Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2012-09-29 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: G S Souza; H B Schakelford; A L A Moura; B D Gomes; D F Ventura; M E C Fitzgerald; L C L Silveira Journal: Braz J Med Biol Res Date: 2012-07-12 Impact factor: 2.590
Authors: Khaldoon O Al-Nosairy; Marc Horbrügger; Sven Schippling; Markus Wagner; Aiden Haghikia; Marc Pawlitzki; Michael B Hoffmann Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-03-26 Impact factor: 5.923