Literature DB >> 4073200

Comparisons among Snellen, psychophysical, and evoked potential visual acuity determinations.

D E Wiener, K Wellish, J I Nelson, M J Kupersmith.   

Abstract

Acuity limits were determined for gratings of progressively finer spatial frequency directly from the visually evoked potential. The evoked potential was retrieved in real time, while spatial frequency was electronically changed or swept. The results of the swept evoked potential technique are compared to acuity thresholds determined psychophysically with similar gratings, and with Snellen acuity determinations over the range 6/60 (20/200) to 6/3.6 (20/12), obtained by defocusing with positive spherical lenses. One line of Snellen acuity is easily discriminated; the absolute Snellen level can often be identified to within two lines with 95% certainty. Correlations between visually evoked response (VER) grating and Snellen optotype acuity levels are poorer than correlations between VER- and psychophysically-determined grating acuity limits, perhaps because of variability inherent in the Snellen task itself. The swept evoked potential affords a rapid, objective, and potentially useful measure of acuity in young or minimally cooperative subjects.

Mesh:

Year:  1985        PMID: 4073200     DOI: 10.1097/00006324-198510000-00002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Optom Physiol Opt        ISSN: 0093-7002


  7 in total

1.  Objective measurement of human visual acuity by visual evoked potentials.

Authors:  A K Kharauzov; S V Pronin; A F Sobolev; S A Koskin; E V Boiko; Yu E Shelepin
Journal:  Neurosci Behav Physiol       Date:  2006-11

2.  A comparison of contrast sensitivity and sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP) acuity estimates in normal humans.

Authors:  William H Ridder
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-08-14       Impact factor: 2.379

3.  A comparison of the performance of three visual evoked potential-based methods to estimate visual acuity.

Authors:  Anne Kurtenbach; Hana Langrová; Andre Messias; Eberhart Zrenner; Herbert Jägle
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-11-11       Impact factor: 2.379

Review 4.  VEP estimation of visual acuity: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ruth Hamilton; Michael Bach; Sven P Heinrich; Michael B Hoffmann; J Vernon Odom; Daphne L McCulloch; Dorothy A Thompson
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-06-02       Impact factor: 2.379

5.  Threshold determination in sweep VEP and the effects of criterion.

Authors:  Naveen Kr Yadav; Fahad Almoqbel; Liseann Head; Elizabeth L Irving; Susan J Leat
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2009-06-24       Impact factor: 2.379

6.  Assessment of visual disability using visual evoked potentials.

Authors:  Jihoon Jeon; Seiyul Oh; Sungeun Kyung
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-08-06       Impact factor: 2.209

Review 7.  Assessment of Human Visual Acuity Using Visual Evoked Potential: A Review.

Authors:  Xiaowei Zheng; Guanghua Xu; Kai Zhang; Renghao Liang; Wenqiang Yan; Peiyuan Tian; Yaguang Jia; Sicong Zhang; Chenghang Du
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-09-28       Impact factor: 3.576

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.