Hansa Kundra1,2, Jason C Park1, J Jason McAnany3,4,5. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1855 W. Taylor St., Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. 2. Department of Bioengineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, 851 South Morgan St., Chicago, IL, 60607, USA. 3. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1855 W. Taylor St., Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. jmcana1@uic.edu. 4. Department of Bioengineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, 851 South Morgan St., Chicago, IL, 60607, USA. jmcana1@uic.edu. 5. Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1007 W. Harrison St., Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. jmcana1@uic.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare measurements of the full-field photopic negative response (PhNR), as well as intra-subject variation in the PhNR, using time and time-frequency domain analyses. METHODS: Full-field ERGs were recorded from 20 normally sighted subjects (aged 24-65 years) elicited by a long-wavelength pulse (3 cd s m-2) presented against a short-wavelength adapting field (12.5 cd m-2). Three to 10 waveforms were obtained from each subject, and each waveform was analyzed using standard time domain analyses of the PhNR, as well as a discrete wavelet transform (DWT) to extract time-frequency components that correspond to the PhNR. Three different measures of the PhNR were derived and compared: (1) amplitude at the PhNR trough; (2) amplitude at 72 ms following stimulus onset; (3) energy in the 11 Hz, 60-120 ms DWT frequency bin that corresponds to the PhNR. In addition, the effect of normalizing the PhNR by the b-wave was evaluated for each of the measures. Coefficients of variation (CVs) were computed for each definition to evaluate intra-subject variation. RESULTS: PhNR amplitudes measured at the trough and at 72 ms were significantly correlated (r = 0.88, p < 0.001). Additionally, PhNR energy derived by DWT was significantly correlated with the amplitude measured at the trough (r = 0.64, p = 0.002) and at 72 ms (r = 0.60, p = 0.005). Mean (±SD) intra-subject CVs were 26 % (15 %), 49 % (26 %), and 30 % (15 %), for measures at the trough, 72 ms, and DWT, respectively. Normalization by the b-wave amplitude (i.e., PhNR/b) had minimal effect on the intra-subject CVs, whereas normalization by the sum of the b-wave and PhNR amplitudes (i.e., PhNR/[b + PhNR]) substantially reduced the CVs for all three measures (mean CVs were less than 17 % for all conditions). CONCLUSIONS: Although each PhNR definition has advantages and disadvantages, all three metrics provide similar estimates of the PhNR. Intra-subject CVs, however, were relatively high for measurements made at 72 ms, indicating that definitions based on a fixed time point may introduce variability. The substantial decrease in intra-subject variation after normalization by the sum of the PhNR and b-wave amplitudes may be advantageous under some conditions.
PURPOSE: To compare measurements of the full-field photopic negative response (PhNR), as well as intra-subject variation in the PhNR, using time and time-frequency domain analyses. METHODS: Full-field ERGs were recorded from 20 normally sighted subjects (aged 24-65 years) elicited by a long-wavelength pulse (3 cd s m-2) presented against a short-wavelength adapting field (12.5 cd m-2). Three to 10 waveforms were obtained from each subject, and each waveform was analyzed using standard time domain analyses of the PhNR, as well as a discrete wavelet transform (DWT) to extract time-frequency components that correspond to the PhNR. Three different measures of the PhNR were derived and compared: (1) amplitude at the PhNR trough; (2) amplitude at 72 ms following stimulus onset; (3) energy in the 11 Hz, 60-120 ms DWT frequency bin that corresponds to the PhNR. In addition, the effect of normalizing the PhNR by the b-wave was evaluated for each of the measures. Coefficients of variation (CVs) were computed for each definition to evaluate intra-subject variation. RESULTS: PhNR amplitudes measured at the trough and at 72 ms were significantly correlated (r = 0.88, p < 0.001). Additionally, PhNR energy derived by DWT was significantly correlated with the amplitude measured at the trough (r = 0.64, p = 0.002) and at 72 ms (r = 0.60, p = 0.005). Mean (±SD) intra-subject CVs were 26 % (15 %), 49 % (26 %), and 30 % (15 %), for measures at the trough, 72 ms, and DWT, respectively. Normalization by the b-wave amplitude (i.e., PhNR/b) had minimal effect on the intra-subject CVs, whereas normalization by the sum of the b-wave and PhNR amplitudes (i.e., PhNR/[b + PhNR]) substantially reduced the CVs for all three measures (mean CVs were less than 17 % for all conditions). CONCLUSIONS: Although each PhNR definition has advantages and disadvantages, all three metrics provide similar estimates of the PhNR. Intra-subject CVs, however, were relatively high for measurements made at 72 ms, indicating that definitions based on a fixed time point may introduce variability. The substantial decrease in intra-subject variation after normalization by the sum of the PhNR and b-wave amplitudes may be advantageous under some conditions.
Authors: Pantea Moghimi; Nathalia Torres Jimenez; Linda K McLoon; Theoden I Netoff; Michael S Lee; Angus MacDonald; Robert F Miller Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2019-10-12 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Mathieu Gauvin; Allison L Dorfman; Nataly Trang; Mercedes Gauthier; John M Little; Jean-Marc Lina; Pierre Lachapelle Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-12-22 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Livia M Brandao; Matthias Monhart; Andreas Schötzau; Anna A Ledolter; Anja M Palmowski-Wolfe Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2017-06-07 Impact factor: 2.379