Objective assessment of visual acuity: a refined model for analyzing the sweep VEP.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Electroretinography
Evoked Potentials, Visual
/ physiology
Female
Healthy Volunteers
Humans
Lens Diseases
/ physiopathology
Male
Middle Aged
Models, Statistical
Optic Nerve Diseases
/ physiopathology
Retinal Diseases
/ physiopathology
Vision Tests
/ methods
Visual Acuity
/ physiology
Young Adult
Sweep VEP
Visual acuity
Visual electrophysiology
Visual evoked potentials
Journal
Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology
ISSN: 1573-2622
Titre abrégé: Doc Ophthalmol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 0370667
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2019
04 2019
Historique:
received:
20
06
2018
accepted:
23
01
2019
pubmed:
30
1
2019
medline:
18
5
2019
entrez:
30
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to develop a simple and reliable method for the objective assessment of visual acuity by optimizing the stimulus used in commercially available systems and by improving the methods of evaluation using a nonlinear function, the modified Ricker model. Subjective visual acuity in the normal subjects was measured with Snellen targets, best-corrected, and in some cases also uncorrected and with plus lenses (+ 1 D, + 2 D, + 3 D). In patients, subjective visual acuity was measured best-corrected using the Freiburg Visual Acuity Test. Sweep VEP recordings to 11 spatial frequencies, with check sizes in logarithmically equidistant steps (0.6, 0.9, 1.4, 2.1, 3.3, 4.9, 7.3, 10.4, 18.2, 24.4, and 36.5 cpd), were obtained from 56 healthy subjects aged between 17 and 69 years (mean 42.5 ± 15.3 SD years) and 20 patients with diseases of the lens (n = 6), retina (n = 8) or optic nerve (n = 6). The results were fit by a multiple linear regression (2nd-order polynomial) or a nonlinear regression (modified Ricker model) and parameters compared (limiting spatial frequency (sf Recording with 11 spatial frequencies allows a more accurate determination of acuities above 1.0 logMAR. Tuning curves fitted to the results show that compared to the normal 2nd-order polynomial analysis, the modified Ricker model is able to describe closely the amplitudes of the sweep VEP in relation to the spatial frequencies of the presented checkerboards. In patients with a visual acuity better than about 0.5 (decimal), the predicted acuities based on the different parameters show a good match of the predicted visual acuities based on the models established in healthy volunteers to the subjective visual acuities. However, for lower visual acuities, both models tend to overestimate the visual acuity (up to ~ 0.4 logMAR), especially in patients suffering from AMD. Both models, the 2nd-order polynomial and the modified Ricker model performed equally well in the prediction of the visual acuity based on the amplitudes recorded using the sweep VEP. However, the modified Ricker model does not require the exclusion of data points from the fit, as necessary when fitting the 2nd-order polynomial model making it more reliable and robust against outliers, and, in addition, provides a measure for the noise of the recorded results.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30694438
doi: 10.1007/s10633-019-09672-z
pii: 10.1007/s10633-019-09672-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
97-116Références
Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Apr;7(4):145-147
pubmed: 12691758
J Physiol. 1968 Aug;197(3):551-66
pubmed: 5666169
J Clin Neurophysiol. 2006 Apr;23(2):107-10
pubmed: 16612226
Biometrics. 1982 Mar;38(1):105-14
pubmed: 7082754
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2008 Sep;28(5):393-403
pubmed: 18761477
Doc Ophthalmol. 2013 Feb;126(1):45-56
pubmed: 23143759
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1965 Apr;12(2):87-94
pubmed: 5876166
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2002 Sep;219(9):660-7
pubmed: 12410466
Neuroimage. 2000 Nov;12(5):550-64
pubmed: 11034862
Doc Ophthalmol. 2008 Sep;117(2):85-91
pubmed: 17972124
Ann Clin Biochem. 2015 May;52(Pt 3):382-6
pubmed: 25214637
Vision Res. 1996 Mar;36(6):903-9
pubmed: 8736223
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
J Physiol. 1970 May;207(3):635-52
pubmed: 5499740
Exp Brain Res. 1978 Nov 15;33(3-4):535-50
pubmed: 729663
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007 Jul;245(7):965-71
pubmed: 17219125
Int J Ophthalmol. 2011;4(5):558-66
pubmed: 22553721
Stat Methods Med Res. 1999 Jun;8(2):135-60
pubmed: 10501650
Clin Neurophysiol. 2014 Jul;125(7):1471-8
pubmed: 24370492
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 1999 Sep;215(3):175-81
pubmed: 10528283
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1970 Jan;28(1):48-54
pubmed: 4188473
Clin Neurophysiol. 2008 Jun;119(6):1271-80
pubmed: 18387340
J Physiol. 1966 Dec;187(3):517-52
pubmed: 16783910
Doc Ophthalmol. 2004 Nov;109(3):239-47
pubmed: 15957609
BMC Ophthalmol. 2012 Aug 06;12:36
pubmed: 22866948
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1979 Jul;18(7):703-13
pubmed: 447469
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993 Jan;34(1):120-9
pubmed: 8425819
Neurology. 2009 Jan 13;72(2):162-4
pubmed: 19139368
Doc Ophthalmol. 2017 Dec;135(3):209-218
pubmed: 28980154
Br J Ophthalmol. 2008 Mar;92(3):396-403
pubmed: 18303162
Theor Popul Biol. 1998 Dec;54(3):270-93
pubmed: 9878605
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2010;2010:4687-90
pubmed: 21096008
Doc Ophthalmol. 2010 Feb;120(1):111-9
pubmed: 19826847
Doc Ophthalmol. 2016 Aug;133(1):1-9
pubmed: 27443562
Optom Vis Sci. 1996 Jan;73(1):49-53
pubmed: 8867682
Doc Ophthalmol. 2012 Apr;124(2):99-107
pubmed: 22262233
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1982;2(1):5-23
pubmed: 7088556
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1998 Dec;39(13):2759-68
pubmed: 9856787
J Physiol. 1975 Nov;252(3):627-56
pubmed: 1206570
Fortschr Ophthalmol. 1988;85(5):550-4
pubmed: 3224930
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 1992 Feb;200(2):105-9
pubmed: 1578860
Vision Res. 1974 Dec;14(12):1409-20
pubmed: 4446371