2002
DOI: 10.1016/s0021-5155(02)00504-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The a-Wave Latency in Control Subjects and Patients with Retinal Diseases

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…6(c). We can see that the photoreceptor IOS onset time was 1.1 AE 0.2 ms, while the ERG a-wave onset time was 5.0 AE 0.5 ms. 39 The difference was statistically significant with a p-value smaller than 0.001 using a single sided t-test. Figure 6(d) shows the averaged photoreceptor IOS and ERG curves.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…6(c). We can see that the photoreceptor IOS onset time was 1.1 AE 0.2 ms, while the ERG a-wave onset time was 5.0 AE 0.5 ms. 39 The difference was statistically significant with a p-value smaller than 0.001 using a single sided t-test. Figure 6(d) shows the averaged photoreceptor IOS and ERG curves.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…37 Different studies have also reported the structural changes leading to the reduced amplitude and increased latency in the cone ERG parameters, more specifically, changes in cone outer segment, reduced density of the photoreceptors, cell shrinkage, and delay in cone phototransduction. [38][39][40] In our study based on the decrease in FFAmp, the global decay rate was noted to be 18.7% and for the 30 Hz amplitude to be 14.6%. Similar rates have been reported by Berson et al 21 of 16% to 18.5% change in ERG amplitudes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 46%