Literature DB >> 21475982

Comparison of pattern VEP results acquired using CRT and TFT stimulators in the clinical practice.

Balázs Vince Nagy1, Szabolcs Gémesi, Dávid Heller, András Magyar, Agnes Farkas, György Abrahám, Balázs Varsányi.   

Abstract

There are several electrophysiological systems available commercially. Usually, control groups are required to compare their results, due to the differences between display types. Our aim was to examine the differences between CRT and LCD/TFT stimulators used in pattern VEP responses performed according to the ISCEV standards. We also aimed to check different contrast values toward thresholds. In order to obtain more precise results, we intended to measure the intensity and temporal response characteristics of the monitors with photometric methods. To record VEP signals, a Roland RetiPort electrophysiological system was used. The pattern VEP tests were carried out according to ISCEV protocols on a CRT and a TFT monitor consecutively. Achromatic checkerboard pattern was used at three different contrast levels (maximal, 75, 25%) using 1° and 15' check sizes. Both CRT and TFT displays were luminance and contrast matched, according to the gamma functions based on measurements at several DAC values. Monitor-specific luminance parameters were measured by means of spectroradiometric instruments. Temporal differences between the displays' electronic and radiometric signals were measured with a device specifically built for the purpose. We tested six healthy control subjects with visual acuity of at least 20/20. The tests were performed on each subject three times on different days. We found significant temporal differences between the CRT and the LCD monitors at all contrast levels and spatial frequencies. In average, the latency times were 9.0 ms (±3.3 ms) longer with the TFT stimulator. This value is in accordance with the average of the measured TFT input-output temporal difference values (10.1 ± 2.2 ms). According to our findings, measuring the temporal parameters of the TFT monitor with an adequately calibrated measurement setup and correcting the VEP data with the resulting values, the VEP signals obtained with different display types can be transformed to be comparable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21475982     DOI: 10.1007/s10633-011-9270-5

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


  4 in total

1.  Achieving precise display timing in visual neuroscience experiments.

Authors:  Tobias Elze
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 2.390

2.  Optimization of visual evoked potential (VEP) recording systems.

Authors:  Rustum Karanjia; Donald G Brunet; Martin W ten Hove
Journal:  Can J Neurol Sci       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 2.104

3.  Visual evoked potentials with CRT and LCD monitors: when newer is not better.

Authors:  Aatif M Husain; Susan Hayes; Margaret Young; Dharmen Shah
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2009-01-13       Impact factor: 9.910

4.  ISCEV standard for clinical visual evoked potentials (2009 update).

Authors:  J Vernon Odom; Michael Bach; Mitchell Brigell; Graham E Holder; Daphne L McCulloch; Alma Patrizia Tormene
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 2.379

  4 in total
  5 in total

1.  Liquid crystal display screens as stimulators for visually evoked potentials: flash effect due to delay in luminance changes.

Authors:  Celso Soiti Matsumoto; Kei Shinoda; Harue Matsumoto; Hideaki Funada; Haruka Minoda; Atsushi Mizota
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-05-22       Impact factor: 2.379

2.  Comparison of cathode ray tube and liquid crystal display stimulators for use in multifocal VEP.

Authors:  Marÿke Fox; Colin Barber; David Keating; Alan Perkins
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-07-02       Impact factor: 2.379

3.  Effect of biological factors on latency of pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials associated with cathode ray tubes and liquid crystal display monitors in normal young subjects.

Authors:  Midori Ura; Mutsuki Matsuo; Haruna Yamazaki; Hiroshi Morita
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-04-13       Impact factor: 2.379

4.  Comparison of CRT and LCD monitors for objective estimation of visual acuity using the sweep VEP.

Authors:  Torsten Straßer; Denise Tara Leinberger; Dominic Hillerkuss; Eberhart Zrenner; Ditta Zobor
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 1.854

5.  Pattern visual evoked potentials elicited by organic electroluminescence screen.

Authors:  Celso Soiti Matsumoto; Kei Shinoda; Harue Matsumoto; Hideaki Funada; Kakeru Sasaki; Haruka Minoda; Takeshi Iwata; Atsushi Mizota
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-08-14       Impact factor: 3.411

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.