Xiaowei Zheng1, Guanghua Xu2,3, Yifan Wu1, Yunyun Wang4, Chenghang Du1, Yongcheng Wu1, Sicong Zhang1, Chengcheng Han1. 1. School of Mechanical Engineering, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China. 2. School of Mechanical Engineering, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China. ghxu@xjtu.edu.cn. 3. State Key Laboratory for Manufacturing Systems Engineering, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China. ghxu@xjtu.edu.cn. 4. School of Software Engineering, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There are several stimulus paradigms used in objective visual acuity assessment based on steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs). The aim of this study was to explore the difference and performance of common used six stimulus paradigms (reverse vertical sinusoidal gratings, reverse horizontal sinusoidal gratings, reverse vertical square-wave gratings, brief-onset vertical sinusoidal gratings, reversal checkerboards and oscillating expansion-contraction concentric-rings) of SSVEP acuity assessment. METHODS: We tested subjective visual acuity both by tumbling E and Freiburg Visual Acuity and Contrast Test (FrACT) in 11 subjects. SSVEPs were induced by 11 spatial frequencies for each paradigm, and then a threshold determination criterion was used to define the objective SSVEP visual acuity. RESULTS: After SSVEP signal analysis, we found there was difference in SSVEP response of harmonic components and no difference in sensitive electrode placement for the six paradigms. We selected six electrodes (PO3, POz, PO4, O1, Oz and O2) as the sensitive electrodes to use in data processing for each paradigm. The results showed that except for brief-onset vertical sinusoidal gratings, the correlation and agreement between objective SSVEP and subjective FrACT acuity were all quite good, demonstrating good performance in acuity detection for the rest five paradigms. CONCLUSION: Except for brief-onset vertical sinusoidal gratings, all the five stimulus paradigms of reverse vertical sinusoidal gratings, reverse horizontal sinusoidal gratings, reverse vertical square-wave gratings, reversal checkerboards and oscillating expansion-contraction concentric-rings performed quite well in objective SSVEP visual acuity assessment.
PURPOSE: There are several stimulus paradigms used in objective visual acuity assessment based on steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs). The aim of this study was to explore the difference and performance of common used six stimulus paradigms (reverse vertical sinusoidal gratings, reverse horizontal sinusoidal gratings, reverse vertical square-wave gratings, brief-onset vertical sinusoidal gratings, reversal checkerboards and oscillating expansion-contraction concentric-rings) of SSVEP acuity assessment. METHODS: We tested subjective visual acuity both by tumbling E and Freiburg Visual Acuity and Contrast Test (FrACT) in 11 subjects. SSVEPs were induced by 11 spatial frequencies for each paradigm, and then a threshold determination criterion was used to define the objective SSVEP visual acuity. RESULTS: After SSVEP signal analysis, we found there was difference in SSVEP response of harmonic components and no difference in sensitive electrode placement for the six paradigms. We selected six electrodes (PO3, POz, PO4, O1, Oz and O2) as the sensitive electrodes to use in data processing for each paradigm. The results showed that except for brief-onset vertical sinusoidal gratings, the correlation and agreement between objective SSVEP and subjective FrACT acuity were all quite good, demonstrating good performance in acuity detection for the rest five paradigms. CONCLUSION: Except for brief-onset vertical sinusoidal gratings, all the five stimulus paradigms of reverse vertical sinusoidal gratings, reverse horizontal sinusoidal gratings, reverse vertical square-wave gratings, reversal checkerboards and oscillating expansion-contraction concentric-rings performed quite well in objective SSVEP visual acuity assessment.