Retinal visual acuity with pattern VEP normal subjects and reproducibility

Simon, Fredemann; Rassow, B.

doi:10.1007/bf02141491

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Repeatability studies for acuity estimates in normal subjects have also been carried out for the pattern visual evoked potential [18]. Simon and Rassow [18] determined the VEP response to 6 spatial frequencies (i.e., 2, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 cpd) at one temporal frequency (6.5 reversals per second) for 7 subjects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reliability of acuities determined with the sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP)

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

sVEPs are generally used to rapidly obtain visual acuity. Several studies have determined the reliability of acuity measurements with psychophysical techniques. The aim of this study was to determine the intersession and intrasession variabilities of sVEP measurements. Twenty-four normal, adult subjects took part in this project. Stimulus production and data analyses were done using an Enfant 4010. Standard VEP recording techniques were employed. Data were collected on two separate days (at least 1 week apart). At each visit, two complete sets of sVEP data were collected and averaged. A logMAR acuity chart was also used to determine the acuity at each visit. Paired t tests, 95% confidence intervals, intraclass correlation coefficients, and coefficients of repeatability were used to determine whether there was a difference in the intrasession and intersession acuities. The mean acuity difference and coefficient of repeatability were +0.01 and 0.191 for visit 1 and -0.019 and 0.186 for visit 2, respectively. The mean acuity difference and coefficient of repeatability across visits were +0.008 and 0.176 for the first acuity and-0.02 and 0.170 for the second acuity, respectively. Paired t tests did not find a significant difference between any set of data or the average for visits one and two (all P values > 0.05). The intraclass correlation coefficients comparing the average sVEP data and the logMAR data for visits 1 and 2 were 0.71 and 0.88, respectively. The coefficients of repeatability for the averaged sVEP acuity and the logMAR acuity for the two visits were 0.11 and 0.07, respectively. The repeatability of the sVEP acuity estimate in a large population of adults is similar to that of previous published reports on infants and is nearly as high as that of logMAR acuity chart data. The repeatability is the same for single best estimates of acuity and averaged estimates of acuity across visits.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Simon and Rassow [18] determined the VEP response to 6 spatial frequencies (i.e., 2, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 cpd) at one temporal frequency (6.5 reversals per second) for 7 subjects. The results for 3 visits (approximately 1 week apart per visit) were presented in table format.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of acuities determined with the sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP)

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Pattern visual evoked potentials (PVEP) reflect the function of the visual pathway from the receptor cells to the visual cortex. Because it primarily reflects central retinal function, it has been used to predict objective VA [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. PVEP testing has been used in the follow-up of children during the management of amblyopia.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pattern visual evoked potentials in the assessment of objective visual acuity in amblyopic children

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to determine the value of pattern visual evoked potentials (PVEP) to five consecutive check size patterns in the assessment of visual acuity (VA) in children. One hundred unilateral amblyopic (study group) and 90 healthy children with best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 1.0 (control group) were planned to be included. PVEP responses to five consecutive check sizes (2 degrees , 1 degrees , 30', 15', and 7') which are assumed to correspond to VAs of 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.7 and 1.0 Snellen lines were recorded in both groups. Eighty-five children in the study group (85.0%) and 74 children in the control group (82.2%) who cooperated well with PVEP testing were included. Normal values for latency, amplitude, and normalized interocular amplitude/latency difference in each check size were defined in the control group. PVEP-estimated VA (PVEP-VA) in the amblyopic eye was defined by the normal PVEP responses to the smallest check size associated with normal interocular difference from the non-amblyopic eye, and was considered predictive if it is within +/-1 Snellen line (1 decimal) discrepancy with BCVA in that eye. Mean age was 9.7 +/- 1.9 and 9.9 +/- 2.2 years in the study and the control groups, respectively. LogMAR (logarithm of minimum angle of resolution) Snellen acuity was well correlated with the logMAR PVEP-VA (r = 0.525, P < 0.001) in the study group. The Snellen line discrepancy between BCVA and PVEP-VA was within +/-1 Snellen line in 57.6% of the eyes. PVEP to five consecutive check sizes may predict objective VA in amblyopic children.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, Simon and Rassow [22] postu lated that linear regression as an analytical method is advantageous compared with the threshold method. Howe et al [2] estimated the PVER acuity by plotting contrast thresh old against check size and extrapolating to the maximum contrast (100%).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Snellen Visual Acuity versus Pattern Reversal Visual-Evoked Response Acuity in Clinical Applications

Ohn

Katsumi²,

Matsui³

et al. 1994

Ophthalmic Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We compared the best-corrected Snellen acuity (SA) and the pattern reversal visual-evoked response (PVER) acuity in normal subjects and patients. Forty-two eyes of 42 normal subjects were controls; 457 eyes of 329 patients comprised the patient group. A steady-state stimulus with five check sizes ranging from 160 to 10 min in 1.0-octave steps was used. The PVER acuity was derived from the best-fit linear function relating the amplitude to the log-adjusted check size. Three intercepts of 0, 1 and 2 μV were used in both groups, and the PVER acuities were called P°, P¹ and P². The SAs in normal subjects ranged from 20/15 to 20/20 (mean, 20/18.3) and in patients from 20/15 to 20/1,600 (mean, 20/56.9). In normals, the P° showed the best agreement with the SA (mean acuity difference, +0.34 octave). The SA and P° agreed within ± 2.0 octaves in 33/42 (78.6%) eyes. In patients, the P° also showed the best agreement with the SA; 306/457 (67.0%) eyes showed an acuity difference within ± 2.0 octaves. Unlike normals, 83/ 457 (18.2%) eyes showed an acuity difference > -3.0 octaves. These eyes mostly had optic nerve disease with a flattened PVER amplitude-check size function curve. The P° seems to correlate better with SA than P¹ and P², but this analytical method may be less effective in the presence of certain pathologic conditions.

show abstract

Retinal visual acuity with pattern VEP normal subjects and reproducibility

Cited by 15 publications

References 15 publications

Reliability of acuities determined with the sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP)

Reliability of acuities determined with the sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP)

Pattern visual evoked potentials in the assessment of objective visual acuity in amblyopic children

Snellen Visual Acuity versus Pattern Reversal Visual-Evoked Response Acuity in Clinical Applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About