Modern Perimetry in Neuro-ophthalmic Diagnosis

Ellenberger, Christoph

doi:10.1001/archneur.1974.00490330001001

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The intensity of the light stimulus is increased until it is perceived by the subject, this intensity value being taken as the threshold. Repeated testing of the same point by this method produces a normal variability of within 0.3 to 0.4 log units of light intensity (Ellenberger, 1974).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Variability of Visual Threshold in Multiple Sclerosis

Patterson

Foster

Heron

1980

Brain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual thresholds were measured at four different background luminance levels in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and in control subjects by means of frequency-of-seeing curves. Results were examined by probit analysis and measures of threshold and threshold variability were obtained. Comparison of patient and control groups showed that the patient's threshold was significantly raised only at the highest background luminance level, but that threshold variability was greater at all three non-zero background luminance levels tested. In addition, threshold variability increased with background luminance in the MS patients but not in the control subjects. Possible underlying pathophysiological mechanisms are discussed, and it is suggested that this luminance-dependent variability in visual threshold shown by patients with multiple sclerosis may be due to intermittent conduction block or ephaptic transmission occurring within the demyelinated visual pathway.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Variability of Visual Threshold in Multiple Sclerosis

Patterson

Foster

Heron

1980

Brain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Static fields of 38 of the 49 patients in Groups A and B and of all other patients and controls were measured. We tested visual fields by methods described previously [9]. ampLitudes did not differ by more than 10% between the two eyes.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual evoked potentials and quantitative perimetry in multiple sclerosis

Ellenberger

Ziegler

1977

Annals of Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The visual evoked potential (VEP) to a flash stimulus proved to be more effective than quantitative perimetry in detecting evidence of previous optic neuritis (97 vs 569%) or asymptomatic lesions in the visual pathways (56 vs 14%) of 49patients with multiple sclerosis. The characteristic VEP abnormality, increased latency, was also found in 8 of 15 eyes with visual field defects related to ischemic optic neuropathy. This abnormality therefore is not specific for demyelinative disease, but it is highly suggestive in the presence of normal visual function determined psychophysically. The VEP disclosed a high incidence (8 1%) of asymptomatic lesions in optic nerves opposite previously affected eyes. Neither the presence nor the magnitude of the latency abnormality correlated with the degree of visual impairment. Prolonged latency may not be present at the onset of acute optic neuritis. had never experienced symptoms suggesting past or present clinical involvement of the visual pathways. These patients were compared to 50 normal subjects matched with respect to age and sex. In addition, 7 of the 49 patients (Group C ) were examined during their first episode of acute optic neuritis. A comparison group (Group D) consisted of 12 patients with ischemic optic neuropathy.We measured the monocular VEP to a flash stimulus in all patients and controls. The pupils were not dilated, the eye to be tested was lightly closed, and the opposite eye was occluded by an opaque patch. A Grass PS22 photostimulator, at a flash-intensity setting of 4, delivered one flash per second at a distance 20 cm from the eye. Responses were recorded over a band width of 0.3 to 100 Hz between an active electrode over the contralateral occipital cortex (0, or 0,) and a common electrode at the vertex (Cz). A Nicolet 1072 computer averaged 128 successive stimuli twice for each eye.Visual acuity and kinetic visual fields of all patients and control subjects were measured. Static fields of 38 of the 49 patients in Groups A and B and of all other patients and controls were measured. We tested visual fields by methods described previously [9]. Results NORMAL SUBJECTS.The latency of the first major upward deflection was the most reliable index separating the VEPs of patients from those of normal subjects (Fig 1). Mean latency among the controls was 52.8 t 4.0 msec. We selected 60 msec as the upper limit of From the Divisions

show abstract

Ophthalmological Evaluation of Pituitary Adenomas

Gittinger

1980

The Pituitary Adenoma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern Perimetry in Neuro-ophthalmic Diagnosis

Cited by 7 publications

References 15 publications

Variability of Visual Threshold in Multiple Sclerosis

Variability of Visual Threshold in Multiple Sclerosis

Visual evoked potentials and quantitative perimetry in multiple sclerosis

Ophthalmological Evaluation of Pituitary Adenomas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About