Literature DB >> 33037950

Minor effect of inaccurate fixation on VEP-based acuity estimates.

Amal A Elgohary1, Sven P Heinrich2,3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: VEP-based estimation of visual acuity may be used in cases of suspected malingering to objectify subjective complaints. In such an application, a lack of cooperation needs to be expected. The same may apply to young children with suspected functional impairments. In the present study, we assessed how inaccurate fixation affects the acuity estimates obtained with a VEP technique.
METHODS: VEP-based acuity estimates were obtained by stimulating with a series of different check sizes using a 'stepwise sweep' protocol. Sixteen participants were tested with normal and degraded vision under five different fixation conditions (central fixation and eccentric fixation at top, bottom, right, and left edge of the stimulus area).
RESULTS: The majority of individual acuity estimates with eccentric fixation differed by less than 0.1 logMAR from central fixation, and almost all estimates differed by less than 0.3 logMAR. Median estimates with eccentric fixation differed only slightly (up to 0.08 logMAR) and, except for top fixation with normal vision, non-significantly. However, data quality was lower with eccentric fixation, which increased the probability that no acuity estimate could be derived from the recording.
CONCLUSION: VEP-based acuity estimates are relatively insensitive to eccentric fixation. Unnoticed deviations from central fixation in routine applications will probably be smaller than in the present study and will have even less impact on the outcome.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Eccentric fixation; Objective acuity testing; Visual acuity; Visual evoked potentials; functional impairment; malingering

Year:  2020        PMID: 33037950      PMCID: PMC7943488          DOI: 10.1007/s10633-020-09796-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0012-4486            Impact factor:   2.379


  15 in total

Review 1.  Do's and don'ts in Fourier analysis of steady-state potentials.

Authors:  M Bach; T Meigen
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 2.379

2.  Visual evoked potential-based acuity assessment in normal vision, artificially degraded vision, and in patients.

Authors:  M Bach; J P Maurer; M E Wolf
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 4.638

3.  Acuity VEP: improved with machine learning.

Authors:  Michael Bach; Sven P Heinrich
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 2.379

4.  Objective assessment of visual acuity: a refined model for analyzing the sweep VEP.

Authors:  Torsten Strasser; Fadi Nasser; Hana Langrová; Ditta Zobor; Łukasz Lisowski; Dominic Hillerkuss; Carla Sailer; Anne Kurtenbach; Eberhart Zrenner
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-01-29       Impact factor: 2.379

5.  Comparing enfant and PowerDiva sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP) acuity estimates.

Authors:  William H Ridder; Bradley S Waite; Timothy F Melton
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-08-24       Impact factor: 2.379

6.  Visual evoked potential-based acuity assessment: overestimation in amblyopia.

Authors:  Yaroslava Wenner; Sven P Heinrich; Christina Beisse; Antje Fuchs; Michael Bach
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-03-13       Impact factor: 2.379

7.  ISCEV standard for clinical visual evoked potentials: (2016 update).

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

8.  Expert consensus statement to guide the evidence-based classification of Paralympic athletes with vision impairment: a Delphi study.

Authors:  H J C Rianne Ravensbergen; D L Mann; S J Kamper
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2016-02-18       Impact factor: 13.800

9.  Imitating the effect of amblyopia on VEP-based acuity estimates.

Authors:  Sven P Heinrich; Celia M Bock; Michael Bach
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-11-18       Impact factor: 2.379

10.  On the statistical significance of electrophysiological steady-state responses.

Authors:  T Meigen; M Bach
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 1.854

View more
  2 in total

1.  Temporal frequency dependence of the polarity inversion between upper and lower visual field in the pattern-onset steady-state visual evoked potential.

Authors:  Roman Kessler; Sven P Heinrich
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-10-22       Impact factor: 1.854

2.  VEP-based acuity estimation: unaffected by translucency of contralateral occlusion.

Authors:  Sven P Heinrich; Isabell Strübin; Michael Bach
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-05-11       Impact factor: 2.379

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.