Literature DB >> 18303162

Visual evoked potential-based acuity assessment in normal vision, artificially degraded vision, and in patients.

M Bach1, J P Maurer, M E Wolf.   

Abstract

AIMS: To assess visual acuity (VA) objectively using visual evoked potentials (VEPs), avoiding subjective trace evaluation and providing an acuity estimate with associated confidence limits.
METHODS: 40 normal subjects and 24 patients (with corneal and retinal diseases, decimal VA range 0.15-1.1 (= 0.8(logMAR) to -0.04(logMAR))) participated in the study. Checkerboard stimuli with six check sizes covering 0.05-0.4 degrees (or 0.09-0.8 degrees for visual acuities below 0.35 (= 0.46(logMAR)) were presented in brief-onset mode (40 ms on, 93 ms off) at 7.5 Hz. In normal subjects, the stimuli were also optically degraded by frosted occluders resulting in a decimal VA range of 0.13-2.8 (= 0.9(logMAR) to -0.45(logMAR)). Altogether, 108 steady-state VEPs were recorded with a Laplacian montage (2xOz-(RO+LO)). Fourier analysis yielded the magnitude (A) at the stimulus frequency, and the average of the two neighboring frequencies as noise estimate (N). A and N determine the significance level p of the response, and from their ratio the non-noise-contaminated response (A*) can be calculated. Tuning curves were obtained by plotting A* vs the dominant spatial frequency of the corresponding checkerboard. A fully automatic algorithm used the significance level (p<5%) and A* to automatically select an appropriate region in the high spatial-frequency range on which a linear regression was performed, yielding a zero-amplitude extrapolated spatial frequency SF0. Subjective VA was obtained with the automated "Freiburg Acuity Test".
RESULTS: The brief-onset presentation evoked high VEP amplitudes; however, many tuning curves displayed the well-known "notch" at intermediate check sizes. The fully automated analysis algorithm succeeded in 107 of 108 cases and effectively ignored the notch, if present. The relation between logVA and log(SF0) was a constant factor throughout the range tested: logVA = log(SF0)/17.6 cpd. In more than 95% of all cases, the acuity predicted from SF0 coincided within a factor of two (up and down, or +/-0.3 logMAR) with subjective VA with a coefficient of correlation of 0.90.
CONCLUSION: The fully automated analysis avoided subjective problems in peak-trough assessment. The results provide quantitative limits to assess patients with possible malingering.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18303162     DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2007.130245

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0007-1161            Impact factor:   4.638


  35 in total

1.  Some thoughts on the interpretation of steady-state evoked potentials.

Authors:  Sven P Heinrich
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-01-26       Impact factor: 2.379

2.  Statistical test of VEP waveform equality.

Authors:  Rockefeller S L Young; Eiji Kimura
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2009-12-02       Impact factor: 2.379

3.  Objective measurement of visual resolution using the P300 to self-facial images.

Authors:  David J Marhöfer; Michael Bach; Sven P Heinrich
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-05-15       Impact factor: 2.379

Review 4.  [Electrophysiology in ophthalmology].

Authors:  T Meigen
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 1.059

5.  Pattern visual evoked potentials for identifying malingering.

Authors:  I-Ting Sun; Jong-Jer Lee; Hsiu-Mei Huang; Hsi-Kung Kuo
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-01-25       Impact factor: 2.379

6.  Relating the steady-state visual evoked potential to single-stimulus responses derived from m-sequence stimulation.

Authors:  Sven P Heinrich; Maresa Groten; Michael Bach
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-03-06       Impact factor: 2.379

7.  Acuity VEP: improved with machine learning.

Authors:  Michael Bach; Sven P Heinrich
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 2.379

8.  Objective and quantitative assessment of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity based on steady-state motion visual evoked potentials using concentric-ring paradigm.

Authors:  Xiaowei Zheng; Guanghua Xu; Yunyun Wang; Chengcheng Han; Chenghang Du; Wenqaing Yan; Sicong Zhang; Renghao Liang
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-06-18       Impact factor: 2.379

9.  Can VEP-based acuity estimates in one eye be improved by applying knowledge from the other eye?

Authors:  Jessica Knötzele; Sven P Heinrich
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-06-03       Impact factor: 2.379

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.