Literature DB >> 20607349

Inter-subject, inter-ocular and inter-session repeatability of the photopic negative response of the electroretinogram recorded using DTL and skin electrodes.

Katharine E Mortlock1, Alison M Binns, Yousef H Aldebasi, Rachel V North.   

Abstract

The photopic negative response (PhNR) has attracted interest as a flash ERG component reflecting inner retinal activity, with investigators adopting various approaches to analysing the response. This study has two principal aims: first to determine the most reliable technique for assessing the PhNR amplitude; secondly to compare the repeatability characteristics of the PhNR recorded using DTL and skin active electrodes. Electroretinograms were recorded in 31 subjects, using both electrode types, in response to a Ganzfeld red stimulus (Lee filter "bright red"; 1.76 log phot td.s; 4 Hz) presented over a steady blue background (Schott glass filter BG28; 3.9 log scot td). Sixteen subjects returned to assess repeatability. PhNR amplitude was measured from b-wave peak-to-PhNR trough, pre-stimulus baseline to trough, and from peak and baseline to a fixed time-point; a ratio of b-wave/PhNR amplitude was also calculated. Coefficients of variation (CoV), and inter-ocular and inter-session limits of agreement (LoA) were calculated for all measures. The ratio of b-wave/PhNR amplitude showed the lowest CoV (14.3% DTL; 23.2% skin), inter-ocular LoA (22.2% DTL; 25.0% skin), and inter-session LoA (22.8% DTL; 20.3% skin). The peak-to-trough and peak-to-fixed-time measurements were also consistently reliable. Least reliable measures were those measured from baseline. While skin electrode responses were significantly smaller than DTL responses (P < 0.0001), the variability was only slightly increased. This study suggests that peak-to-trough measurements are the most reliable means of measuring the PhNR and ratio calculation further improves repeatability. Skin electrodes provided a viable alternative to DTL electrodes for recording the PhNR.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20607349     DOI: 10.1007/s10633-010-9239-9

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


  42 in total

1.  The photopic negative response of the flash electroretinogram in retinal vein occlusion.

Authors:  Hongling Chen; Dezheng Wu; Shizhou Huang; Hong Yan
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-08-30       Impact factor: 2.379

2.  The s-cone PHNR and pattern ERG in primary open angle glaucoma.

Authors:  N Drasdo; Y H Aldebasi; Z Chiti; K E Mortlock; J E Morgan; R V North
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 4.799

3.  ISCEV Standard for full-field clinical electroretinography (2008 update).

Authors:  M F Marmor; A B Fulton; G E Holder; Y Miyake; M Brigell; M Bach
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-11-22       Impact factor: 2.379

4.  Dark-adapted luminance-response functions with skin and corneal electrodes.

Authors:  N Wali; L E Leguire
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 2.379

5.  The photopic negative response of the flash electroretinogram in primary open angle glaucoma.

Authors:  S Viswanathan; L J Frishman; J G Robson; J W Walters
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 4.799

6.  Complementary components and local variations of the pattern electroretinogram.

Authors:  N Drasdo; D A Thompson; C M Thompson; L Edwards
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1987-01       Impact factor: 4.799

Review 7.  The origins of luminance and pattern responses of the pattern electroretinogram.

Authors:  D A Thompson; N Drasdo
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 2.997

8.  The photopic negative response of the macaque electroretinogram: reduction by experimental glaucoma.

Authors:  S Viswanathan; L J Frishman; J G Robson; R S Harwerth; E L Smith
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 4.799

9.  Fundus pigmentation and the dark-adapted electroretinogram.

Authors:  N Wali; L E Leguire
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 2.379

10.  ERG electrode in pediatric patients: comparison of DTL fiber, PVA-gel, and non-corneal skin electrodes.

Authors:  S G Coupland; M Janaky
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 2.379

View more
  31 in total

1.  The relationship between stimulus intensity and response amplitude for the photopic negative response of the flash electroretinogram.

Authors:  A M Binns; K E Mortlock; R V North
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-01-18       Impact factor: 2.379

2.  Multi-centre variability of ISCEV standard ERGs in two normal adults.

Authors:  R Hamilton; A Al Abdlseaed; J Healey; M M Neveu; L Brown; D Keating; V A McBain; D Sculfor; D A Thompson
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-02-27       Impact factor: 2.379

3.  Test-retest reliability of the multifocal photopic negative response.

Authors:  Anthony W Van Alstine; Suresh Viswanathan
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-12-29       Impact factor: 2.379

4.  Intensity response function of the photopic negative response (PhNR): effect of age and test-retest reliability.

Authors:  Nabin R Joshi; Emma Ly; Suresh Viswanathan
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-05-15       Impact factor: 2.379

5.  Photopic negative response using a handheld mini-ganzfeld stimulator in healthy adults: normative values, intra- and inter-session variability.

Authors:  Adriana Berezovsky; Rustum Karanjia; Arthur Gustavo Fernandes; Gabriel Izan Santos Botelho; Tatiane Luana Novele Bueno; Nívea Nunes Ferraz; Paula Yuri Sacai; Stuart Glenn Coupland; Alfredo Arrigo Sadun; Solange Rios Salomão
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-07-17       Impact factor: 2.379

6.  Structural and functional measures of inner retinal integrity following visual acuity improvement in a patient with hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy type VI.

Authors:  Sowjanya Gowrisankaran; Anastasios Anastasakis; Gerald A Fishman; Kenneth R Alexander
Journal:  Ophthalmic Genet       Date:  2011-06-27       Impact factor: 1.803

7.  The photopic negative response of the Light-adapted 3.0 ERG in clinical settings.

Authors:  Gonzalo Ortiz; David Drucker; Connor Hyde; Joseph Staffetti; Jan Kremers; Radouil Tzekov
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 2.379

Review 8.  Electroretinography in glaucoma diagnosis.

Authors:  Laura J Wilsey; Brad Fortune
Journal:  Curr Opin Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 3.761

9.  Ganglion cell loss in early glaucoma, as assessed by photopic negative response, pattern electroretinogram, and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography.

Authors:  Barbara Cvenkel; Maja Sustar; Darko Perovšek
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 2.379

10.  Comparison of photopic negative response measurements in the time and time-frequency domains.

Authors:  Hansa Kundra; Jason C Park; J Jason McAnany
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-08-25       Impact factor: 2.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.