Dylan Vatcher1, Allison L Dorfman1, Youjia Shen1, Jia Yue You1, Vincent Sun1, Ayesha Khan1, Robert C Polomeno1, Pierre Lachapelle2,3. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, 1001 Decarie BOULEVARD, Glen Site, Block E, Room EM03238, Montreal, QC, H4A 3J1, Canada. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, 1001 Decarie BOULEVARD, Glen Site, Block E, Room EM03238, Montreal, QC, H4A 3J1, Canada. pierre.lachapelle@mcgill.ca. 3. Department of Neurology-Neurosurgery, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, H4A 3J1, Canada. pierre.lachapelle@mcgill.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We have previously shown that the amplitude of the mfERG response obtained to a single (large) hexagon is significantly smaller than that obtained when summating all the mfERG responses evoked to an array of 7-61 hexagons covering the same retinal area. The purpose of this study was to confirm our initial findings in normal subjects of different ages and in selected patients. METHODS: Binocular mfERGs (1, 7, 19, 37 and 61 hexagon arrays; Espion V6.0.54 Diagnosys LLC) were recorded from 40 normal subjects (25 aged 18-25, and 15 aged 3-12). Individual mfERG waveforms evoked in response to the multi-hexagon arrays (7, 19, 37 and 61) were summated, and the amplitude of the resulting composite mfERG waveform was compared to that measured in the response evoked to the single (large) hexagon stimulus to yield the amplitude ratio (i.e., 7:1 X100, 19:1X100, etc.). RESULTS: In normal subjects, the 7:1 ratio was 119.5 ± 9.2%, a value that gradually decreased to reach 109.4 ± 20.6% with the 61:1 ratio and a finding that was similar across all ages. CONCLUSION: The present study indicates a significant enhancement in amplitude of the summed mfERG composite waveform evoked to the 7 hexagon stimulus array (and to a lesser extent to the 19, 37 and 61 stimuli) compared to the 1 hexagon array, possibly mediated through the retinal lateral pathway (horizontal or amacrine cells), a claim that awaits confirmation. Preliminary results obtained from patients treated with Plaquenil suggest that this new method of mfERG analysis might probe a feature of macular function different from that investigated with the more usual method of mfERG ring ratio.
PURPOSE: We have previously shown that the amplitude of the mfERG response obtained to a single (large) hexagon is significantly smaller than that obtained when summating all the mfERG responses evoked to an array of 7-61 hexagons covering the same retinal area. The purpose of this study was to confirm our initial findings in normal subjects of different ages and in selected patients. METHODS: Binocular mfERGs (1, 7, 19, 37 and 61 hexagon arrays; Espion V6.0.54 Diagnosys LLC) were recorded from 40 normal subjects (25 aged 18-25, and 15 aged 3-12). Individual mfERG waveforms evoked in response to the multi-hexagon arrays (7, 19, 37 and 61) were summated, and the amplitude of the resulting composite mfERG waveform was compared to that measured in the response evoked to the single (large) hexagon stimulus to yield the amplitude ratio (i.e., 7:1 X100, 19:1X100, etc.). RESULTS: In normal subjects, the 7:1 ratio was 119.5 ± 9.2%, a value that gradually decreased to reach 109.4 ± 20.6% with the 61:1 ratio and a finding that was similar across all ages. CONCLUSION: The present study indicates a significant enhancement in amplitude of the summed mfERG composite waveform evoked to the 7 hexagon stimulus array (and to a lesser extent to the 19, 37 and 61 stimuli) compared to the 1 hexagon array, possibly mediated through the retinal lateral pathway (horizontal or amacrine cells), a claim that awaits confirmation. Preliminary results obtained from patients treated with Plaquenil suggest that this new method of mfERG analysis might probe a feature of macular function different from that investigated with the more usual method of mfERG ring ratio.
Authors: Daphne L McCulloch; Michael F Marmor; Mitchell G Brigell; Ruth Hamilton; Graham E Holder; Radouil Tzekov; Michael Bach Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2014-12-14 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: D C Hood; V C Greenstein; K Holopigian; R Bauer; B Firoz; J M Liebmann; J G Odel; R Ritch Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Mercedes Gauthier; Antoine Brassard Simard; Anna Polosa; Allison L Dorfman; Cynthia X Qian; Jean-Marc Lina; Pierre Lachapelle Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-08-26 Impact factor: 4.755