Literature DB >> 3428078

Pattern electroretinogram plus visual evoked potential: a decisive test in patients suspected of malingering.

J Röver1, M Bach.   

Abstract

Along the processing chain in the visual pathway the pattern electroretinogram (PERG) is a better indicator of the peripheral function than the visual evoked potential (VEP). Therefore the PERG and the VEP will be impaired equally by disturbances before the ganglion cell layer (e.g., blurred image or retinal disease) and differently by further centrally located diseases (e.g., tumor compression of the optic nerve). Thus in patients complaining of reduced visual acuity who show disturbed VEP but a normal PERG, malingering can be definitely ruled out. Representative combinations of PERG and VEP findings are described.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3428078     DOI: 10.1007/BF00145238

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


  11 in total

1.  OBJECTIVE VISUAL FIELD TESTING. OCCIPITAL POTENTIALS EVOKED FROM SMALL VISUAL STIMULI.

Authors:  R M COPENHAVER; G D BEINHOCKER
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1963-11-23       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  [Objective determination of visual acuity using electronystagmography-recent experiences].

Authors:  R Makabe
Journal:  Klin Monbl Augenheilkd       Date:  1984-03       Impact factor: 0.700

3.  Human pattern-evoked electroretinogram.

Authors:  R F Hess; C L Baker
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1984-05       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Human fast retinal potentials and the spatial properties of a visual stimulus.

Authors:  M Korth
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1981       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  Effect of retinal blur on the peak latency of the pattern evoked potential.

Authors:  S Sokol; A Moskowitz
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1981       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  The ERG in response to alternating gratings in patients with diseases of the peripheral visual pathway.

Authors:  A Fiorentini; L Maffei; M Pirchio; D Spinelli; V Porciatti
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1981-09       Impact factor: 4.799

7.  Voluntary alteration of visual evoked potentials.

Authors:  J Bumgartner; C M Epstein
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  1982-11       Impact factor: 10.422

Review 8.  Development of retinal and cortical responses to pattern reversal in infants: a selective review.

Authors:  A Fiorentini; M Pirchio; D Spinelli
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  1983-10       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Diagnosing functional visual deficits with the P300 component of the visual evoked potential.

Authors:  V L Towle; E Sutcliffe; S Sokol
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1985-01
View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  Non-organic visual loss.

Authors:  S Beatty
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.401

2.  Assessment of patients with suspected non-organic visual loss using pattern appearance visual evoked potentials.

Authors:  Vikki A McBain; Anthony G Robson; Chris R Hogg; Graham E Holder
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-11-17       Impact factor: 3.117

3.  Objective measurement of visual resolution using the P300 to self-facial images.

Authors:  David J Marhöfer; Michael Bach; Sven P Heinrich
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-05-15       Impact factor: 2.379

4.  Pattern visual evoked potentials for identifying malingering.

Authors:  I-Ting Sun; Jong-Jer Lee; Hsiu-Mei Huang; Hsi-Kung Kuo
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-01-25       Impact factor: 2.379

5.  Faces are more attractive than motion: evidence from two simultaneous oddball paradigms.

Authors:  David J Marhöfer; Michael Bach; Sven P Heinrich
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-03-21       Impact factor: 2.379

6.  Check-size specific changes of pattern electroretinogram in patients with early open-angle glaucoma.

Authors:  M Bach; P Hiss; J Röver
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 2.379

7.  Pattern visual evoked potentials in cases of ambiguous acuity loss.

Authors:  P Bobak; P Khanna; J Goodwin; M Brigell
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 2.379

8.  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

9.  Functional visual loss.

Authors:  Beau B Bruce; Nancy J Newman
Journal:  Neurol Clin       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.806

10.  Sensitivity and specificity of the step VEP in suspected functional visual acuity loss.

Authors:  Ruth Hamilton; Michael S Bradnam; Gordon N Dutton; Anna L Lai Chooi Yan; Tim E Lavy; I Livingstone; Alison M Mackay; Jane R Mackinnon
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-12-01       Impact factor: 2.379

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.