Alkiviades Liasis1,2, Jessi Gruszewski3, Jessica Toro3, Ken K Nischal3,4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Medical Centre, UPMC Eye Centre, Pittsburgh, PA, 15201, USA. Liasisa@upmc.edu. 2. School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 15201, USA. Liasisa@upmc.edu. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Medical Centre, UPMC Eye Centre, Pittsburgh, PA, 15201, USA. 4. School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 15201, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study evaluated a new light-emitting diode (LED-S) photic stimulator and compared skin electroretinogram (ERG) responses obtained to those evoked by the Grass Instrument stimulator (GP-S). METHODS: Two sub-studies were combined to evaluate the difference in responses resulting from the LED-S and GP-S stimuli. The first was a photometry study that matched the LED-S stimuli to the GP-S. In the second study, electroretinograms (ERGs) were recorded under scotopic and photopic conditions using stimuli each stimulator. The stimuli were matched photometrically to measurements obtained from the photometer located 30 cm in front of the stimulators. In addition, the ERG responses were recorded from the LED stimulator when photometrically matched to the GP-S blue stimulus presented through a ganzfeld. The amplitudes and time peaks of the resulting ERG a- and b-waves were then measured and compared using paired T-tests. RESULTS: Study 1: The LED-S was matched to the GP-S at various intensity settings measured 30 cm away from the stimulator. Measurement through a ganzfeld full-field stimulator (GFFS) demonstrated that the GP-S had a significant hot spot centrally. Study 2: Photometrically matched ERGs evoked by both stimulators while employing the direct head-on measurements demonstrated multiple similarities. Similarities included component morphology, amplitude and implicit time across the two stimulators, excluding the rod-driven stimulus (GP-S setting employing a blue filter). Differences between the rod-driven ERGs evoked by the GP-S and LED-S while employing head-on photometric measurements were due to the significant difference in intensities between the two stimulators. The GP-S and LED-S evoked similar rod-driven ERG responses when they were matched using the GFFS photometrically matched intensities protocol. CONCLUSION: A hand-held stimulator is essential when recording ERG's in the practice of paediatric visual electrophysiology. The LED-S can match the GP-S stimulus intensities, making it a potential replacement for the GP-S. In addition, the LED-S has uniform intensity across the surface of the device compared to the GP-S, is silent for standard stimuli and can generate prolonged duration stimuli for the recording of on-off ERGs.
PURPOSE: This study evaluated a new light-emitting diode (LED-S) photic stimulator and compared skin electroretinogram (ERG) responses obtained to those evoked by the Grass Instrument stimulator (GP-S). METHODS: Two sub-studies were combined to evaluate the difference in responses resulting from the LED-S and GP-S stimuli. The first was a photometry study that matched the LED-S stimuli to the GP-S. In the second study, electroretinograms (ERGs) were recorded under scotopic and photopic conditions using stimuli each stimulator. The stimuli were matched photometrically to measurements obtained from the photometer located 30 cm in front of the stimulators. In addition, the ERG responses were recorded from the LED stimulator when photometrically matched to the GP-S blue stimulus presented through a ganzfeld. The amplitudes and time peaks of the resulting ERG a- and b-waves were then measured and compared using paired T-tests. RESULTS: Study 1: The LED-S was matched to the GP-S at various intensity settings measured 30 cm away from the stimulator. Measurement through a ganzfeld full-field stimulator (GFFS) demonstrated that the GP-S had a significant hot spot centrally. Study 2: Photometrically matched ERGs evoked by both stimulators while employing the direct head-on measurements demonstrated multiple similarities. Similarities included component morphology, amplitude and implicit time across the two stimulators, excluding the rod-driven stimulus (GP-S setting employing a blue filter). Differences between the rod-driven ERGs evoked by the GP-S and LED-S while employing head-on photometric measurements were due to the significant difference in intensities between the two stimulators. The GP-S and LED-S evoked similar rod-driven ERG responses when they were matched using the GFFS photometrically matched intensities protocol. CONCLUSION: A hand-held stimulator is essential when recording ERG's in the practice of paediatric visual electrophysiology. The LED-S can match the GP-S stimulus intensities, making it a potential replacement for the GP-S. In addition, the LED-S has uniform intensity across the surface of the device compared to the GP-S, is silent for standard stimuli and can generate prolonged duration stimuli for the recording of on-off ERGs.
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: Anne B Fulton; Jelka Brecelj; Birgit Lorenz; Anne Moskowitz; Dorothy Thompson; Carol A Westall Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2006-11-16 Impact factor: 2.379