Effect of nystagmus on VEP-based objective visual acuity estimates

被引:1
作者
Quanz, Elisabeth V. [1 ]
Kuske, Juliane [1 ]
Stolle, Francie H. [1 ]
Bach, Michael [2 ,3 ]
Heinrich, Sven P. [2 ,3 ]
Hoffmann, Michael B. [1 ,4 ]
Al-Nosairy, Khaldoon O. [1 ]
机构
[1] Otto von Guericke Univ, Ophthalm Dept, Magdeburg, Germany
[2] Univ Freiburg, Eye Ctr, Med Ctr, Freiburg, Germany
[3] Univ Freiburg, Fac Med, Freiburg, Germany
[4] Ctr Behav Brain Sci Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany
来源
SCIENTIFIC REPORTS | 2024年 / 14卷 / 01期
关键词
VEP; Nystagmus; Visual acuity; Microperimetry; STABILITY; REVERSAL;
D O I
10.1038/s41598-024-66819-y
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
In order to determine the effect of nystagmus on objective visual acuity (VA) estimates, we compared subjective (VApsych) and objective (VEP, VAVEP) VA estimates in participants with nystagmus. For this purpose, 20 participants with nystagmus (NY) caused by idiopathic infantile nystagmus, albinism, achiasma or acquired nystagmus were recruited in this study. Estimates of BCVA (best corrected visual acuity) were determined psychophysically (VApsych; FrACT, Freiburg visual acuity test) and electrophysiologically (VAVEP; EP2000) according to ISCEV (International Society of Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision) guidelines. For each participant the eye with the stronger fixation instability [Nidek microperimeter (MP-1), Nidek Instruments] was included for further analysis. VApsych vs VAVEP were compared via paired t-tests and the correlation of the difference between VApsych and VAVEP (triangle VA) vs the degree of fixation instability was tested with Pearson correlation (r). We found VAVEP to be better than VApsych [by 0.12 Logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution (logMAR); mean +/- standard error (SE) of VAVEP vs VApsych: 0.176 +/- 0.06 vs. 0.299 +/- 0.06, P = 0.017] and triangle VA to be correlated linearly with the degree of fixation instability (r2 = 0.21,p = 0.048). In conclusion, on average we report a small VA overestimation, around 1 line, for VAVEP compared to VApsych in NY. This overestimation depended on the magnitude of the fixation instability. As a rule of thumb, a reduction of the fixation probability in the central 4 degrees from 100 to 50% leads on average to a VAVEP overestimation of around 0.25 logMAR, i.e. 2.5 lines.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 25 条
  • [1] American Clinical Neurophysiology Society Guideline 2: Guidelines for Standard Electrode Position Nomenclature
    Acharya, Jayant N.
    Hani, Abeer
    Cheek, Janna
    Thirumala, Partha
    Tsuchida, Tammy N.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY, 2016, 33 (04) : 308 - 311
  • [2] Optical Coherence Tomography as a Biomarker for Differential Diagnostics in Nystagmus: Ganglion Cell Layer Thickness Ratio
    Al-Nosairy, Khaldoon O.
    Quanz, Elisabeth, V
    Biermann, Julia
    Hoffmann, Michael B.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2022, 11 (17)
  • [3] A DECISIVE ELECTRO-PHYSIOLOGICAL TEST FOR HUMAN ALBINISM
    APKARIAN, P
    REITS, D
    SPEKREIJSE, H
    VANDORP, D
    [J]. ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY AND CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY, 1983, 55 (05): : 513 - 531
  • [4] Visual evoked potential-based acuity assessment in normal vision, artificially degraded vision, and in patients
    Bach, M.
    Maurer, J. P.
    Wolf, M. E.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2008, 92 (03) : 396 - 403
  • [5] The Freiburg Visual Acuity test - Automatic measurement of visual acuity
    Bach, M
    [J]. OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, 1996, 73 (01) : 49 - 53
  • [6] Bach M, 2007, EP2000
  • [7] GOTTLOB I, 1993, CLIN VISION SCI, V8, P417
  • [8] Grf M., 2004, Ophthalmologe, V101, P1121, DOI [10.1007/s00347-004-1045-x, DOI 10.1007/S00347-004-1045-X]
  • [9] ISCEV extended protocol for VEP methods of estimation of visual acuity
    Hamilton, Ruth
    Bach, Michael
    Heinrich, Sven P.
    Hoffmann, Michael B.
    Odom, J. Vernon
    McCulloch, Daphne L.
    Thompson, Dorothy A.
    [J]. DOCUMENTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA, 2021, 142 (01) : 17 - 24
  • [10] VEP estimation of visual acuity: a systematic review
    Hamilton, Ruth
    Bach, Michael
    Heinrich, Sven P.
    Hoffmann, Michael B.
    Odom, J. Vernon
    McCulloch, Daphne L.
    Thompson, Dorothy A.
    [J]. DOCUMENTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA, 2021, 142 (01) : 25 - 74