| Literature DB >> 34895130 |
Thomas Eggert1, Christoph J Schankin1,2, Ozan E Eren3, Andreas Straube1, Florian Schöberl1, Ruth Ruscheweyh1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patients with visual snow syndrome (VSS) suffer from a debilitating continuous ("TV noise-like") visual disturbance. They report problems with vision at night and palinopsia despite normal visual acuity. The underlying pathophysiology of VSS is largely unknown. Currently, it is a clinical diagnosis based on the patient's history, an objective test is not available. Here, we tested the hypothesis that patients with VSS have an increased threshold for detecting visual contrasts at particular temporal frequencies by measuring dynamic contrast detection-thresholds.Entities:
Keywords: Contrast threshold; Dynamic contrast perception; Visual acuity; Visual snow syndrome
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34895130 PMCID: PMC8903496 DOI: 10.1186/s10194-021-01355-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Headache Pain ISSN: 1129-2369 Impact factor: 7.277
Fig. 1Gabor patch that served as detection stimulus. The pattern was modulated in time by a harmonic sinusoidal modulation with amplitudes between 0.37 and 28 cd/m2 and at six different frequencies (15 Hz, 20 Hz, 25 Hz, 30 Hz, 35 Hz and 40 Hz). Background luminance: 82 cd/m2. The figure shows the two alternative image orientations (leftward tilt/rightward tilt). The figures illustrate only the central portion of the screen (width: ±23.9 deg, height: ±14 deg). Outside of this window, the luminance was constant and equal to the background luminance
Descriptive statistics of the contrast threshold (Michelson contrast): The median and the inter-quartile range of the threshold is shown for each flicker frequency and for both groups. The last three columns show the results of the unpaired t-test of the log10 (contrast threshold) between patients and controls. Significant differences are marked in bold
| Freq. [Hz] | Group | Contrast threshold ( | Degree of freedom | t-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| median [iqr] * 100 | |||||
| 20 | controls | 1.68 [1.19] | 37 | −1.31 | 0.1999 |
| patients | 1.99 [0.69] | ||||
| 25 | controls | 2.71 [1.85] | 38 | −1.03 | 0.3088 |
| patients | 3.10 [1.30] | ||||
| 30 | controls | 6.08 [3.75] | 38 | −0.16 | 0.8739 |
| patients | 6.21 [3.09] | ||||
| 35 | controls | 7.60 [5.48] | 37 | −1.35 | 0.1841 |
| patients | 9.12 [3.34] | ||||
| 40 | controls | 9.29 [5.55] | 38 | −1.81 | 0.0783 |
| patients | 11.36 [3.64] |
Fig. 2Dynamic contrast threshold as a function of temporal flicker frequency [Hz] for VSS patients and controls. Bars and whiskers show the mean of the log10 (contrast threshold) and the 95% confidence interval of the mean. Each cross indicates the threshold of a single subject. VSS patients showed higher contrast thresholds at 15 Hz (asterisk, p < 0.01) but did not differ from controls at higher frequencies
Fig. 3Dependence of the contrast threshold in controls (A) and VSS patients (B) on age. Solid: the 95% confidence ellipse and its great semi axis. r: Pearson’s coefficient of correlation between age and contrast threshold. Significant correlation was observed in patients (p < 0.001) but not in controls