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

被引:11
|
作者
Ridder, William H., III [1 ]
机构
[1] Marshall B Ketchum Univ, Southern Calif Coll Optometry, 2575 Yorba Linda Blvd, Fullerton, CA 92831 USA
关键词
Visual acuity; Contrast sensitivity; Sweep visual evoked potential; Optotypes; SPATIAL-FREQUENCY; SNELLEN ACUITY; VEP; RELIABILITY; ADAPTATION; AGREEMENT; RESPONSES; SUMMATION; PATTERNS; CHILDREN;
D O I
10.1007/s10633-019-09712-8
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose Several previous studies have demonstrated that for normal adult subjects the optotype acuity measured with charts is better than the acuity determined with the sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP) using gratings or checks. However, there is no difference in psychophysical measures of acuity with optotype or grating charts. Thus, it is unclear whether the acuity discrepancy between optotype charts and the sVEP result from the stimulus design or other methodological differences. The purpose of this experiment is to determine the relationship between acuities extrapolated from a contrast sensitivity function (CSF) that uses optotypes and the sVEP. Methods Normal subjects (N = 10) with acuity of 0.00 logMAR or better (ETDRS chart) were recruited for this study. Two commercially available systems were used to measure CSFs [i.e., the Beethoven System (Ryklin Software, NY) and the qCSF system (Adaptive Sensory Tech, CA)]. The stimuli for the Beethoven were sine wave gratings (0.75-18.50 cpd), and thresholds were determined with a 2-alternative forced choice (2-AFC) procedure combined with a staircase. The stimuli for the qCSF system were spatially filtered letters (10 possible letters, 10-AFC) with the letter sizes and contrasts determined by a Bayesian adaptive procedure. Visual acuity was determined by fitting the data with a double exponential equation and extrapolating the fit to a contrast sensitivity of one. The sVEP was obtained with the PowerDiva (Digital Instrumentation for Visual Assessment, version 3.5, CA). The stimuli were sine wave gratings (80% contrast, 3-36 cpd) counter-phased at 7.5 Hz. The final acuity was the average of two estimates each derived from the average of 10 sweeps. Results The average logMAR chart (acuity converted to cpd), sVEP, Beethoven, and qCSF acuities were 36.6 +/- 4.62 cpd (mean +/- SD), 31.2 +/- 4.59 cpd, 27.3 +/- 7.38 cpd, and 27.6 +/- 6.36 cpd, respectively. The logMAR chart acuity was significantly different from the other acuity estimates (all p values < 0.05). The sVEP, Beethoven, and qCSF acuities were not different from one another (all p values < 0.05). The Beethoven and the qCSF acuities had a good intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC = 0.85). Conclusions Similar to previous publications, the sVEP acuity estimate was less than the optotype chart acuity. The acuity determined with the sVEP and the CSFs with letter and grating stimuli were not statistically different, suggesting that the difference in acuity with the sVEP and optotype charts does not result from stimulus differences. Other with the letter sizes and contrasts determined by a Bayesian adaptive procedure. Visual acuity was determined by fitting the data with a double exponential equation and extrapolating the fit to a contrast sensitivity of one. The sVEP was obtained with the PowerDiva (Digital Instrumentation for Visual Assessment, version 3.5, CA). The stimuli were sine wave gratings (80% contrast, 3-36 cpd) counter-phased at 7.5 Hz. The final acuity was the average of two estimates each derived from the average of 10 sweeps. Results The average logMAR chart (acuity converted to cpd), sVEP, Beethoven, and qCSF acuities were 36.6 +/- 4.62 cpd (mean +/- SD), 31.2 +/- 4.59 cpd, 27.3 +/- 7.38 cpd, and 27.6 +/- 6.36 cpd, respectively. The logMAR chart acuity was significantly different from the other acuity estimates (all p values < 0.05). The sVEP, Beethoven, and qCSF acuities were not different from one another (all p values > 0.05). The Beethoven and the qCSF acuities had a good intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC = 0.85). Conclusions Similar to previous publications, the sVEP acuity estimate was less than the optotype chart acuity. The acuity determined with the sVEP and the CSFs with letter and grating stimuli were not statistically different, suggesting that the difference in acuity with the sVEP and optotype charts does not result from stimulus differences. Other methodological differences must account for the discrepancy in sVEP and optotype chart acuity.
引用
收藏
页码:207 / 219
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Sweep visual evoked potential testing as a predictor of recognition acuity in albinism
    Bradfield, Yasmin S.
    France, Thomas D.
    Verhoeve, James
    Gangnon, Ronald E.
    ARCHIVES OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2007, 125 (05) : 628 - 633
  • [22] A new method of extrapolating the sweep pattern visual evoked potential acuity
    Zhou, Peng
    Zhao, Ming-Wei
    Li, Xiao-Xin
    Hu, Xiao-Feng
    Wu, Xi
    Niu, Lan-Jun
    Yu, Wen-Zhen
    Xu, Xiu-Lan
    DOCUMENTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA, 2008, 117 (02) : 85 - 91
  • [23] Visual evoked potential measurement of contrast sensitivity in a case of retinal laser injury reveals visual function loss despite normal acuity
    Glickman, RD
    Harrison, JM
    Zwick, H
    Longbotham, HG
    Ballentine, CS
    Pierce, B
    LASER-INFLICTED EYE INJURIES: EPIDEMIOLOGY, PREVENTION, AND TREATMENT, PROCEEDINGS OF, 1996, 2674 : 34 - 41
  • [24] Sweep Pattern Visual Evoked Potential Acuity in Children during Their Periods of Visual Development
    Li, Lu
    Su, Yu
    Chen, Chang-zheng
    Feng, Chao
    Zheng, Hong-mei
    Xing, Yi-qiao
    OPHTHALMOLOGICA, 2011, 226 (04) : 220 - 227
  • [25] Evaluation of Agreement Between Sweep Visual Evoked Potential Testing and Subjective Visual Acuity
    Polat, Osman Ahmet
    Sener, Hidayet
    Cetinkaya, Zekeriya
    Arda, Hatice
    TURK OFTALMOLOJI DERGISI-TURKISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2023, 53 (05): : 289 - 293
  • [26] Objective measurement of contrast sensitivity function using contrast sweep visual evoked responses
    de Faria, JML
    Katsumi, O
    Arai, M
    Hirose, T
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 1998, 82 (02) : 168 - 173
  • [27] Test-retest reliability of swept visual evoked potential measurements of infant visual acuity and contrast sensitivity
    Lauritzen, L
    Jorgensen, MH
    Michaelsen, KF
    PEDIATRIC RESEARCH, 2004, 55 (04) : 701 - 708
  • [28] Test-Retest Reliability of Swept Visual Evoked Potential Measurements of Infant Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity
    Lotte Lauritzen
    Marianne Hørby Jørgensen
    Kim Fleischer Michaelsen
    Pediatric Research, 2004, 55 : 701 - 708
  • [29] Comparison of contrast sensitivity, visual acuity, and the contrast sensitivity function as predictors of gait in glaucoma
    Nguyen, Angeline Michelle
    Mihailovic, Aleksandra
    Friedman, David S.
    Ramulu, Pradeep Y.
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2016, 57 (12)
  • [30] Impaired contrast sensitivity among leprosy patients with normal visual acuity
    Daniel, E
    Thiripurasundary
    Appavoo, R
    Chacko, S
    Ragupathy, A
    Raju, R
    LEPROSY REVIEW, 2005, 76 (01) : 55 - 64