Voluntary suppression of the multifocal electroretinogram

Vrabec, Tamara R.; Affel, Elizabeth; Gaughan, John; Foroozan, Rod; Tennant, Matthew; Klancnik, James M.; Jordan, Christopher S; Savino, Peter J.

doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.04.011

Cited by 20 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mfERG has been shown to be affected by inattention, unsteady fixation and poor focus [34]. Our study also demonstrates that unsteady fixation will suppress the amplitude of the central mfERG responses even with a healthy retina and good concentration, thus demonstrating that fixation is an important issue that must be considered in clinical diagnosis using the mfERG.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 51%

Effects of unsteady fixation on multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG)

Chu

Chan

Leat

2006

Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

These results suggest that mfERG amplitude is not substantially affected if fixation is maintained within the central stimulus hexagon. We conclude that, for patients with poor fixation, the accuracy of mfERG results may be difficult to interpret and the use of a fixation-monitoring system is desirable for ideal measurement. The depth of depression at the blind spot area may be another useful parameter to interpret the accuracy of mfERG results in patients with poor fixation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 51%

Effects of unsteady fixation on multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG)

Chu

Chan

Leat

2006

Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…15 Nevertheless, it is still possible that loss of fixation quality may to some extent have contributed to changes in implicit times or amplitudes. 23 In our study, the OLS to a greater extent contributed to absolute and relative P1-amplitude losses of the total collective (Figure 2 and 3A). To some extent this may correlate with favorable VA outcomes in M/PCLS observed in larger trials.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 49%

“…21,22 Additionally, unstable fixation and variation in pupil size as well as refractive errors may confound mfERG responses. [22][23][24][25] Cataract progression during the 25 Ϯ 10 weeks in which our study took place was clinically insignificant and we do not expect cataract progression to have significantly altered mfERG results. Using an infra-red camera to monitor fixation stability, we obtained reliable and reproducable results in patients with log(MAR) vision of 1.0.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multifocal Electroretinography in Patients With Exudative Amd and Intravitreal Treatment With Pegaptanib Sodium

Lipski

Bornfeld²,

Jurklies³

2007

Retina

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treatment with PS resulted in a decrease of central retinal function more obvious in mfERG than in VA longitudinal testing. Good correlations were seen between changes in mean vision and changes in mfERG response density components. As a decline in P1-response amplitudes anteceded vision loss in this study, our results indicate a possible role of mfERG to predict vision loss during intravitreal pharmacotherapy.

show abstract

“…[36][37][38] We believe that previous studies, which showed a significant decrease in mfERG response amplitude and an increase in mfERG response latency, may be due to the confounding effect of media opacities and the instability of fixation. 19,39,40 The different results reported by different studies may be due to different methodologies (eg stimulus luminance and band-pass 41,42 ), assumptions, 19,21 and different criteria for subject inclusion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aging and mfERG topography

Tam

Chan

Brown

et al. 2004

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To study the effect of aging retina on the multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG). Methods A total of 18 young subjects (age 18-24 years) and 36 elderly subjects (aged 60-85 years) with intraocular lenses (IOLs) were recruited for this study. No subjects had significant eye diseases or media opacities. mfERG was measured in standard conditions using the VERIS system (version 4.1). There were three groups of 18 subjects: (1) 18-25 years, (2) 60-70 years, and (3) 75-85 years. mfERG responses were grouped into central, paracentral, and peripheral regions for analysis. The N1 amplitude, P1 amplitude, N1 latency, and P1 latency of the first-order responses were analysed. Results Age had no effect on P1 latency, N1 amplitude, and P1 amplitude; however, N1 latencies from central to peripheral regions were significantly longer for group 3 than for group 1. Conclusions This study suggests that measured age-related decreases in mfERG responses are due to optical factors (decrease in retinal light levels, scatter) before the age of 70 years, but neural factors significantly affect mfERG topography after the age of 70 years.

show abstract

Voluntary suppression of the multifocal electroretinogram

Cited by 20 publications

References 13 publications

Effects of unsteady fixation on multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG)

Effects of unsteady fixation on multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG)

Multifocal Electroretinography in Patients With Exudative Amd and Intravitreal Treatment With Pegaptanib Sodium

Aging and mfERG topography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About