Literature DB >> 19554357

Threshold determination in sweep VEP and the effects of criterion.

Naveen Kr Yadav1, Fahad Almoqbel, Liseann Head, Elizabeth L Irving, Susan J Leat.   

Abstract

In order to develop criteria for the range of data points used for regression line fitting in sweep visually evoked potential (sVEP), which would be objective, clearly specified and give good repeatability and validity, and in order to investigate the effect of luminance on sVEP measurement, visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity (CS) were measured with sVEP in adults aged 17-30 years and children aged 6-8 years. Six to ten participants took part in each experiment. Five criteria (C0-C4) for fitting the regression line were implemented. Test-retest repeatability and validity against psychophysical thresholds at three luminance levels were considered for thresholds and the number of acceptable readings. There were significant effects of criteria (repeated measures ANOVAs, P < 0.05). The criteria, C2 and C3 (based on the range over which the signal-to-noise ratio >or=1), consistently gave better VA and CS, more viable readings, better agreement with psychophysical thresholds in adults and better repeatability than the other criteria. In the case of adults, C2 gave thresholds that were not significantly different from the psychophysical thresholds (P > 0.05). There was little effect of luminance over the 25-100 cd/m(2) range used. Overall, C2 performed the best and would be the criterion of choice, giving better repeatability, better validity and more viable plots.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19554357     DOI: 10.1007/s10633-009-9177-6

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


  56 in total

1.  Objective measurement of contrast sensitivity using the steady-state visual evoked potential.

Authors:  S A Chen; L Z Wu; D Z Wu
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 2.379

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

Authors:  M Bach; J P Maurer; M E Wolf
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 4.638

3.  Measurement of spatial contrast sensitivity with the swept contrast VEP.

Authors:  A M Norcia; C W Tyler; R D Hamer; W Wesemann
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  Rapid assessment of visual function: an electronic sweep technique for the pattern visual evoked potential.

Authors:  C W Tyler; P Apkarian; D M Levi; K Nakayama
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1979-07       Impact factor: 4.799

5.  Rocket-ship psychophysics. Assessing visual functioning in young children.

Authors:  I Abramov; L Hainline; J Turkel; E Lemerise; H Smith; J Gordon; S Petry
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1984-11       Impact factor: 4.799

6.  Effects of contrast, orientation and binocularity in the pattern evoked potential.

Authors:  C W Tyler; P A Apkarian
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  Latency changes in the human visual evoked response to sinusoidal gratings.

Authors:  D M Parker; E A Salzen
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1977       Impact factor: 1.886

8.  An electrophysiological technique for assessment of the development of spatial vision.

Authors:  V Zemon; E E Hartmann; J Gordon; A Prünte-Glowazki
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 1.973

9.  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

Review 10.  From immature to mature pattern ERG and VEP.

Authors:  Jelka Brecelj
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 2.379

View more
  11 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 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

3.  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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Similarities and differences between behavioral and electrophysiological visual acuity thresholds in healthy infants during the second half of the first year of life.

Authors:  Claudia Polevoy; Gina Muckle; Jean R Séguin; Emmanuel Ouellet; Dave Saint-Amour
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-02-20       Impact factor: 2.379

7.  Effects of sweep VEP parameters on visual acuity and contrast thresholds in children and adults.

Authors:  Fahad M Almoqbel; Naveen K Yadav; Susan J Leat; Liseann M Head; Elizabeth L Irving
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-08-06       Impact factor: 3.117

8.  Anti-fatigue Performance in SSVEP-Based Visual Acuity Assessment: A Comparison of Six Stimulus Paradigms.

Authors:  Xiaowei Zheng; Guanghua Xu; Yubin Zhang; Renghao Liang; Kai Zhang; Yuhui Du; Jun Xie; Sicong Zhang
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2020-07-31       Impact factor: 3.169

Review 9.  VEP estimation of visual acuity: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ruth Hamilton; Michael Bach; Sven P Heinrich; Michael B Hoffmann; J Vernon Odom; Daphne L McCulloch; Dorothy A Thompson
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-06-02       Impact factor: 2.379

10.  Objective assessment of the human visual attentional state.

Authors:  Kevin T Willeford; Kenneth J Ciuffreda; Naveen K Yadav; Diana P Ludlam
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-10-31       Impact factor: 2.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.