Michael B Hoffmann1,2, Jan Brands3, Wolfgang Behrens-Baumann3, Michael Bach4,5. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Otto-von-Guericke University, Magdeburg, Germany. michael.hoffmann@med.ovgu.de. 2. Center for Behavioural Brain Sciences, Magdeburg, Germany. michael.hoffmann@med.ovgu.de. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Otto-von-Guericke University, Magdeburg, Germany. 4. Eye Center, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 5. Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Objective assessment of visual acuity (VA) is possible with VEP methodology, but established with sufficient precision only for vision better than about 1.0 logMAR. We here explore whether this can be extended down to 2.0 logMAR, highly desirable for low-vision evaluations. METHODS: Based on the stepwise sweep algorithm (Bach et al. in Br J Ophthalmol 92:396-403, 2008) VEPs to monocular steady-state brief onset pattern stimulation (7.5-Hz checkerboards, 40% contrast, 40 ms on, 93 ms off) were recorded for eight different check sizes, from 0.5° to 9.0°, for two runs with three occipital electrodes in a Laplace-approximating montage. We examined 22 visually normal participants where acuity was reduced to ≈ 2.0 logMAR with frosted transparencies. With the established heuristic algorithm the "VEP acuity" was extracted and compared to psychophysical VA, both obtained at 57 cm distance. RESULTS: In 20 of the 22 participants with artificially reduced acuity the automatic analysis indicated a valid result (1.80 logMAR on average) in at least one of the two runs. 95% test-retest limits of agreement on average were ± 0.09 logMAR for psychophysical, and ± 0.21 logMAR for VEP-derived acuity. For 15 participants we obtained results in both runs and averaged them. In 12 of these 15 the low-acuity results stayed within the 95% confidence interval (± 0.3 logMAR) as established by Bach et al. (2008). CONCLUSIONS: The fully automated analysis yielded good agreement of psychophysical and electrophysiological VAs in 12 of 15 cases (80%) in the low-vision range down to 2.0 logMAR. This encourages us to further pursue this methodology and assess its value in patients.
PURPOSE: Objective assessment of visual acuity (VA) is possible with VEP methodology, but established with sufficient precision only for vision better than about 1.0 logMAR. We here explore whether this can be extended down to 2.0 logMAR, highly desirable for low-vision evaluations. METHODS: Based on the stepwise sweep algorithm (Bach et al. in Br J Ophthalmol 92:396-403, 2008) VEPs to monocular steady-state brief onset pattern stimulation (7.5-Hz checkerboards, 40% contrast, 40 ms on, 93 ms off) were recorded for eight different check sizes, from 0.5° to 9.0°, for two runs with three occipital electrodes in a Laplace-approximating montage. We examined 22 visually normal participants where acuity was reduced to ≈ 2.0 logMAR with frosted transparencies. With the established heuristic algorithm the "VEP acuity" was extracted and compared to psychophysical VA, both obtained at 57 cm distance. RESULTS: In 20 of the 22 participants with artificially reduced acuity the automatic analysis indicated a valid result (1.80 logMAR on average) in at least one of the two runs. 95% test-retest limits of agreement on average were ± 0.09 logMAR for psychophysical, and ± 0.21 logMAR for VEP-derived acuity. For 15 participants we obtained results in both runs and averaged them. In 12 of these 15 the low-acuity results stayed within the 95% confidence interval (± 0.3 logMAR) as established by Bach et al. (2008). CONCLUSIONS: The fully automated analysis yielded good agreement of psychophysical and electrophysiological VAs in 12 of 15 cases (80%) in the low-vision range down to 2.0 logMAR. This encourages us to further pursue this methodology and assess its value in patients.
Authors: Alison M Mackay; Michael S Bradnam; Ruth Hamilton; Alex T Elliot; Gordon N Dutton Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: J Vernon Odom; Michael Bach; Mitchell Brigell; Graham E Holder; Daphne L McCulloch; Atsushi Mizota; Alma Patrizia Tormene Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 2.379
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