A comparison of the performance of three visual evoked potential-based methods to estimate visual acuity

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00179906%3A_____%2F13%3A10125069" target="_blank" >RIV/00179906:_____/13:10125069 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10633-012-9359-5" target="_blank" >http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10633-012-9359-5</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10633-012-9359-5" target="_blank" >10.1007/s10633-012-9359-5</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

A comparison of the performance of three visual evoked potential-based methods to estimate visual acuity

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

PURPOSE: To compare visual acuities estimated by three methods of visual evoked potential (VEP) recordings to those obtained by two subjective measures [ETDRS and FrACT (Freiburg acuity test)]. METHODS: Ten healthy subjects, aged between 26 and 67 years(mean 43.5), were examined. Best-corrected acuity determined by the ETDRS was between 0.03 and -0.3 logMAR (mean -0.06). Sweep VEPs (sweepVEP), pattern appearance VEPs (pappVEP) and steady-state VEPs (ssVEP) were recorded with two electrode placements (10-20 and Laplace) with best optical correction and with artificially degraded vision using five Bangerter occlusion foils, reducing acuity to about 0.1, 0.22, 0.52, 0.7 and 1.0 logMAR (0.8, 0.6, 0.3, 0.2 and 0.1 decimal scale). Two runs were performed. RESULTS: ETDRS and FrACT acuities showed good agreement, even though ETDRS seemed to underestimate acuity compared with FrACT at higher acuities. Laplace derivation did not improve any of the VEP-estimated acuities over the 10-20. SweepVEP

Název v anglickém jazyce

A comparison of the performance of three visual evoked potential-based methods to estimate visual acuity

Popis výsledku anglicky

PURPOSE: To compare visual acuities estimated by three methods of visual evoked potential (VEP) recordings to those obtained by two subjective measures [ETDRS and FrACT (Freiburg acuity test)]. METHODS: Ten healthy subjects, aged between 26 and 67 years(mean 43.5), were examined. Best-corrected acuity determined by the ETDRS was between 0.03 and -0.3 logMAR (mean -0.06). Sweep VEPs (sweepVEP), pattern appearance VEPs (pappVEP) and steady-state VEPs (ssVEP) were recorded with two electrode placements (10-20 and Laplace) with best optical correction and with artificially degraded vision using five Bangerter occlusion foils, reducing acuity to about 0.1, 0.22, 0.52, 0.7 and 1.0 logMAR (0.8, 0.6, 0.3, 0.2 and 0.1 decimal scale). Two runs were performed. RESULTS: ETDRS and FrACT acuities showed good agreement, even though ETDRS seemed to underestimate acuity compared with FrACT at higher acuities. Laplace derivation did not improve any of the VEP-estimated acuities over the 10-20. SweepVEP

Druh

J_x - Nezařazeno - Článek v odborném periodiku (Jimp, Jsc a Jost)

CEP obor

FF - ORL, oftalmologie, stomatologie

OECD FORD obor

—

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

N - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z neverejnych zdroju

Rok uplatnění

2013

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Documenta Ophthalmologica

ISSN

0012-4486

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

126

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

1

Stát vydavatele periodika

NL - Nizozemsko

Počet stran výsledku

12

Strana od-do

45-56

Kód UT WoS článku

000313518700005

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—