Objective measurement of human visual acuity by visual evoked potentials

Kharauzov, A. K.; Пронин, С. В.; Sobolev, A F; Koskin, S. A.; Boiko, Ernest V.; Shelepin, Yu. E.

doi:10.1007/s11055-006-0139-0

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…in contrast, most previous studies revealed that P1 latency has less inter-individual variation than P1 amplitude [42] , so particular emphasis was laid on the contribution of P1 latency to visual acuity, however, the major variability and the relative blunt modulation of P1 deduced by the traditional ways might limit its further application [21] . Kharauzov reported a strong logarithmic relationship between the threshold spatial frequency and visual acuity, allowing automated calculation of visual acuity from the electrophysiological data [43] . Besides the difference of the visual stimulus from our study, Kharauzov's study neglected the effect of visual angle.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual acuity evaluated by pattern-reversal visual-evoked potential is affected by check size/visual angle

Chen

Liu

et al. 2012

Neurosci. Bull.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To systemically explore the range of visual angles that affect visual acuity, and to establish the relationship between the P1 component (peak latency ~100 ms) of the pattern-reversal visual-evoked potential (PRVEP) and the visual acuity at particular visual angles. Methods Two hundred and ten volunteers were divided into seven groups, according to visual acuity as assessed by the standard logarithmic visual acuity chart (SLD-ii). For each group, the PRVEP components were elicited in response to visual angle presentations at 8°, 4°, 2°, 1°/60´, 30´, 15´, and 7.5´, in the whiteblack chess-board reversal mode with a contrast level of 100% at a frequency of 2 Hz. Visual stimuli were presented monocularly, and 200 presentations were averaged for each block of trials. The early and stable component P1 was recorded at the mid-line of the occipital region (oz) and analyzed with SPSS 13.00. Results (1) oz had the maximum P1 amplitude; there was no significant difference between genders or for interocular comparison in normal controls and subjects with optic myopia. (2) The P1 latency decreased slowly below 30´, then increased rapidly. The P1 amplitude initially increased with check size, and was maximal at ~1° and ~30´. (3) The P1 latency in the group with visual acuity ≤0.2 was significantly different at 8°, 15´ and 7.5´, while the amplitude differed at all visual angles, compared with the group with normal vision. Differences in P1 for the groups with 0.5 and 0.6 acuity were only present at visual angles <1°. (4) Regression analysis showed that the P1 latency and amplitude were associated with visual acuity over the full range of visual angles. There was a moderate correlation at visual angles <30´. Regression equations were calculated for the P1 components and visual acuity, based on visual angle. Conclusion (1) Visual angle should be taken into consideration when exploring the function of the visual pathway, especially visual acuity. A visual angle ~60´ might be appropriate when using PRVEP components to evaluate poor vision and to identify malingerers. (2) increased P1 amplitude and decreased P1 latency were associated with increasing visual acuity, and the P1 components displayed a linear correlation with visual acuity, especially in the range of optimal visual angles. Visual acuity can be deduced from P1 based on visual angle.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual acuity evaluated by pattern-reversal visual-evoked potential is affected by check size/visual angle

Chen

Liu

et al. 2012

Neurosci. Bull.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Steady-state VEP analysis in the frequency domain, sometimes following time domain averaging, typically uses only the first harmonic (at the stimulus frequency) for pattern on/offset stimuli or second harmonic (at the reversal rate) for pattern-reversal stimuli. Including one [26,[71][72][73][74][75][76][77] or even more [78,79] higher harmonics has been explored. Only one study combined harmonics for analysis, using a simple sum of the first and second harmonic magnitudes [76].…”

Section: Criteria For Vep Detectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Including one [26,[71][72][73][74][75][76][77] or even more [78,79] higher harmonics has been explored. Only one study combined harmonics for analysis, using a simple sum of the first and second harmonic magnitudes [76]. In other steady-state VEP applications, the square root of summed harmonic powers has been used to combine harmonics for a ''global SNR'' [80].…”

Section: Criteria For Vep Detectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

VEP estimation of visual acuity: a systematic review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Visual evoked potentials (VEPs) can be used to measure visual resolution via a spatial frequency (SF) limit as an objective estimate of visual acuity. The aim of this systematic review is to collate descriptions of the VEP SF limit in humans, healthy and disordered, and to assess how accurately and precisely VEP SF limits reflect visual acuity. Methods The protocol methodology followed the PRISMA statement. Multiple databases were searched using ''VEP'' and ''acuity'' and associated terms, plus hand search: titles, abstracts or full text were reviewed for eligibility. Data extracted included VEP SF limits, stimulus protocols, VEP recording and analysis techniques and correspondence with behavioural acuity for normally sighted healthy adults, typically developing infants and children, healthy adults with artificially degraded vision and patients with ophthalmic or neurological conditions. Results A total of 155 studies are included. Commonly used stimulus, recording and analysis techniques are summarised. Average healthy adult VEP SF limits vary from 15 to 40 cpd, depend on stimulus, recording and analysis techniques and are often, but not always, poorer than behavioural acuity measured either psychophysically with an identical stimulus or with a clinical acuity test. The difference between VEP SF limit and behavioural acuity is variable and strongly dependent on the VEP stimulus and choice of acuity test. VEP SF limits mature rapidly, from 1.5 to 9 cpd by the end of the first month of life to 12-20 cpd

show abstract

“…To obtain better VEP results, preferably, most of the sweep spatial frequencies should be recognizable with a significant SNR to extrapolate the amplitude against spatial frequency. The sweep range of spatial frequency is about 3 to 30 cpd, corresponding to psychophysical optotypes from 1.0 to 0.0 logMAR in normal humans [ 7 , 36 , 77 , 83 , 85 , 87 , 97 , 98 ]. Besides, the sweep range was biased toward lower spatial frequencies in studies on infants and depended on their age, since their visual function develops over time [ 13 , 19 , 20 , 52 , 65 , 66 , 81 , 88 , 99 , 100 , 101 ].…”

Section: Effects Of Visual Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most widely used method was the linear extrapolation from the highest VEP amplitude response to the 0 µV amplitude baseline between VEP response amplitude and spatial frequency, and this spatial frequency of intersection with the x -axis (zero-response amplitude baseline) was determined as the VEP estimate of acuity. This linear extrapolation method was first proposed by Tyler et al [ 59 ] and subsequently used in many studies [ 13 , 14 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 36 , 62 , 63 , 65 , 66 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 85 , 86 , 88 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 106 , 108 , 110 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 ], and even in recent studies [ 52 , 77 , …”

Section: Effects Of Signal Acquisition and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Zheng

Liang

et al. 2020

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual evoked potential (VEP) has been used as an alternative method to assess visual acuity objectively, especially in non-verbal infants and adults with low intellectual abilities or malingering. By sweeping the spatial frequency of visual stimuli and recording the corresponding VEP, VEP acuity can be defined by analyzing electroencephalography (EEG) signals. This paper presents a review on the VEP-based visual acuity assessment technique, including a brief overview of the technique, the effects of the parameters of visual stimuli, and signal acquisition and analysis of the VEP acuity test, and a summary of the current clinical applications of the technique. Finally, we discuss the current problems in this research domain and potential future work, which may enable this technique to be used more widely and quickly, deepening the VEP and even electrophysiology research on the detection and diagnosis of visual function.

show abstract

Objective measurement of human visual acuity by visual evoked potentials

Cited by 8 publications

References 20 publications

Visual acuity evaluated by pattern-reversal visual-evoked potential is affected by check size/visual angle

Visual acuity evaluated by pattern-reversal visual-evoked potential is affected by check size/visual angle

VEP estimation of visual acuity: a systematic review

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About