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

Ohn, Young-Hoon; Katsumi, Osamu; Matsui, Yoshie; Tetsuka, Hitomi; Hirose, Tatsuo

doi:10.1159/000267482

Cited by 25 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the previous studies [11,19,20,21,22], the SPVEP acuities calculated from both regression methods were greater than the logMAR visual acuity. In our study, we found that SPVEP acuity could be overestimated when a good visual acuity was involved, but underestimated when the visual acuity was poor.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Sweep Pattern Visual Evoked Potential Acuity in Children during Their Periods of Visual Development

Li¹,

Su²,

Chen³

et al. 2011

Ophthalmologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To study the clinical usage of sweep pattern visual evoked potential (SPVEP) acuity in children’s visual development periods and compare the amplitude-spatial frequency (A-SP) function regression method with the amplitude-logarithm of the visual angle (A-logVA) function regression method in evaluating the SPVEP acuity of children, especially those who have poor visual acuities. Methods: Twenty-six eyes of 26 amblyopic children (ages ranged from 3 to 12 years; mean age ± standard deviation 6.69 ± 1.74 years) and 31 eyes of normal children whose ages were matched with the amblyopic group were involved in this study. SPVEP acuity was recorded with GT-2000 NV (Guote Medical Apparatus Ltd., China) using sinusoidally modulated horizontal gratings with 10 different spatial frequencies from 0.99 to 12.89 cycles per degree to stimulate the retina. The averaging responses were displayed with the discrete Fourier transformation method. SPVEP acuity was assessed by both the A-SP function regression method and the A-logVA function regression method. The logarithm of minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) chart was used to obtain logMAR visual acuity. Results: In the normal group, logMAR acuity calculated by both the A-SP and A-logVA function regression methods had a significant correlation with SPVEP acuity. The average value of SPVEP acuity (by A-logVA) was closer to logMAR acuity. The difference of mean values between logMAR acuity and SPVEP acuity was significant in both regression methods. In the amblyopic group, it was SPVEP acuity (by A-logVA) that had a significant correlation with logMAR acuity, whereas the result was not significant when calculated by the A-SP function regression method (p = 0.515). The average value of SPVEP acuity (A-SP) was closer to logMAR acuity. The difference of mean values between logMAR acuity and SPVEP acuity (A-logVA) was significant; however, when compared with SPVEP acuity (A-SP), it was not significant (p = 0.174). In addition, SPVEP acuity may be overestimated or underestimated when it is compared with different logMAR visual acuities. Conclusion: SPVEP could be used to evaluate the visual acuity for normal children or those with poor visual acuity. Moreover, the A-logVA function regression method was more accurate than the A-SP function regression method in evaluating SPVEP acuity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Sweep Pattern Visual Evoked Potential Acuity in Children during Their Periods of Visual Development

Li¹,

Su²,

Chen³

et al. 2011

Ophthalmologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4), flattening of the amplitude-check size function, and shift ing of the peak of the amplitude-check size function toward the larger checks, even with relatively good visual acuities. Ohn et al [21] reported that the PVER acuity does not al ways correlate with Snellen visual acuity, the former being poorer than the latter in patients with optic nerve disorders. Bull's eye maculopathies are another pathology that causes a disparity between the PVER and Snellen acui ties, which probably results from the unique anatomical damage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Pattern-Reversal Visual-Evoked Response in Bull’s Eye Maculopathy Associated with Stargardt’s Disease

et al. 1995

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using steady-state pattern-reversal visual-evoked response (PVER), we studied the macular function in patients with bull’s eye maculopathy. The results were correlated with fluorescein angiography. Study patients with an established (25 eyes of 14 patients) and a suspected (8 eyes of 4 patients) diagnosis of Stargardt’s disease with bull’s eye maculopathy were divided into group G (good vision group: 15 eyes with visual acuity of 20/40 or better) and group P (poor vision group: 18 eyes with visual acuity of 20/50 or worse). The diameters of the atrophic area and the normal or less affected central area of the bull’s eye were measured from the fluorescein angiograms. The mean diameter of the central area in group G (2.0°) was significantly larger than that in group P (0.6°; d.f. = 17, p = 0.0227). The PVER amplitudes were reduced in the patient groups with all check sizes and the amplitude-check size functions were flat. Amplitude differences were observed between the patient groups with the 20’ checks (d.f. = 17, p = 0.0638), probably due to the difference in the mean central diameters (2.0° vs. 0.6°). Patients with a perifoveal abnormality can have an abnormal PVER despite relatively good visual acuity. We also recorded the PVER in 7 normal controls tested with simulated ring-shaped scotomas, the sizes of which matched the mean diameters of the scotomas in the patient groups (7.0° × 0.6° and 7.0° × 2.0°). The controls also showed markedly reduced responses with all check sizes. With the 10-min check, a significant difference was seen between controls tested with the two scotoma sizes, simulating the two patient groups. The amplitude-check size function in bull’s eye maculopathy flattened even in those whose vision was relatively good.

show abstract

“…The disappearance and/or prolongation of the main component of pVEP, named P100, is utilized to determine visual acuity objectively. There are several reports that Snellen and pVEP acuity show good correlation [15,16,26].…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Visual acuity examination is performed in many clinical situations in human medicine. The most common indicator of visual acuity in human beings is the Snellen fraction, which relates the ability of a subject to discriminate between letters or objects at a fixed distance [26,28]. This examination in humans requires the subject's response to judge the limit of visual recognition.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This technique plays a role in assessing visual sense, diagnosing visual impairment caused by post-retinal disorders, and evaluating drug-induced disturbance of the visual pathway [3,5,6,10]. It is known that pattern-reversal VEP (pVEP), which uses a checkerboard pattern on a stimulation monitor, is superior to that with flash stimulation in clinical practice, because of the satiability of the values, and amplitude and latency differ with the check size used [4,11,26,29]. The disappearance and/or prolongation of the main component of pVEP, named P100, is utilized to determine visual acuity objectively.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pattern-Stimulated Visual Evoked Potential in Dog: Changes in Elicited Response with Pattern Size and Calculation of Visual Acuity

Itoh

Maehara

Okada

et al. 2010

The Journal of Veterinary Medical Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The aim of this research was to evaluate the changes in the response of pattern-stimulated visual evoked potential (pVEP) with different pattern size, and demonstrate visual acuity from the minimum visual angle. pVEP was recorded from both eyes of six healthy beagles. Prior to pVEP recording, the dogs were sedated, and a traction fiber was used to prevent the eye from rolling down. The stimulator was set 30 cm from the subject's eye. Pattern reversal frequency of the stimulating monitor was 3 rev/sec, and pattern size was set at seven levels; 14-364 arc-min (1.2-31.4 mm). Amplitude of the P100 component was evaluated, and visual acuity was calculated from the minimum visual angle to obtain a pVEP response. A pVEP response (2.3-3.1 V) was obtained from all subjects. The P100 component was detectable in 3 eyes with a check size of 14 arc-min and 7 eyes with 28 arc-min, and the component was undetectable with 14 arc-min in all subjects in which it was undetectable with 28 arc-min. From the minimum level to obtain the P100 component, the subjects' visual acuity was extrapolated as 0.54-2.14 cycles per degree. We demonstrated the change in P100 component with check size. However, our technique was inadequate to examine visual acuity because the subject's refractive index was ignored. We suggest that, with further study, pVEP with different check sizes would be applicable for canine visual acuity examination.KEY WORDS: canine, pattern size, pattern stimulation, visual acuity, visual evoked potential.

show abstract

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

Cited by 25 publications

References 17 publications

Sweep Pattern Visual Evoked Potential Acuity in Children during Their Periods of Visual Development

Sweep Pattern Visual Evoked Potential Acuity in Children during Their Periods of Visual Development

Pattern-Reversal Visual-Evoked Response in Bull’s Eye Maculopathy Associated with Stargardt’s Disease

Pattern-Stimulated Visual Evoked Potential in Dog: Changes in Elicited Response with Pattern Size and Calculation of Visual Acuity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About