Relations between Visual Acuity, Refraction and the Pattern Reversal Visual-Evoked Cortical Potential in Aphakia

Müller, Winfried; Schöneich, Holger

doi:10.1159/000309964

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unlike the electroencephalogram or electrocardiogram, the interpretation of PVEP results is dependent on the individual examiner [5]. A There are several ways to determine the VA using PVEP: (1) determine the smallest stimulus check size at which the PVEP is recordable [3,13,14]; (2) identify a spatial frequency at which the peak response is recorded [4]; (3) use the extrapolation technique from the PVEP amplitude-check size function [5,6,13]. The relationship between PVEP amplitude and stimulus pattern element size has elicited a strong interest in using PVEP acuity testing as an objective assay of VA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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

show abstract

“…There are several ways to determine PVER acuity. One is an estimation of the VA from the smal lest check size providing a reproducible vi sual-evoked response [6,[13][14][15][16][17], PVER acui ty can also be estimated from the amplitudes taken at different spatial frequencies by iden tifying where the peak response lies [18,19]. An alternative approach is that the regression line of the curve is extrapolated to zero ampli tude or the noise level, then the check size coinciding with this intercept is assumed to indicate the detail resolution ability of the eye [2-4, 20, 21], Another less precise method of estimating the PVER acuity is by comparing the amplitude of a patient's visual-evoked response to that of a normal group.…”

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

“…However, although pattern reversal and pattern onset VEPs have been reported to be useful in the objective assessment of VA both in children and in patients with unexplained visual loss, there is little consensus regarding the methodology or interpretation of VA assessment [16,35,40]. Previous paradigms have included VEP amplitude-spatial frequency function curves [25,36], extrapolation to zero from VEP spatial tuning curves [1,28,38] or the highest spatial frequency to give a recognisable VEP [18,30,34].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of patients with suspected non-organic visual loss using pattern appearance visual evoked potentials

McBain

Robson

Hogg

et al. 2006

Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Relations between Visual Acuity, Refraction and the Pattern Reversal Visual-Evoked Cortical Potential in Aphakia

Cited by 11 publications

References 11 publications

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

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

Assessment of patients with suspected non-organic visual loss using pattern appearance visual evoked potentials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About