About: A comparison of the performance of three visual evoked potential-based methods to estimate visual acuity     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/Vysledek, within Data Space : linked.opendata.cz associated with source document(s)

AttributesValues
rdf:type
rdfs:seeAlso
Description
  • 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 tended to overestimate lower FrACT acuities, but showed good repeatability. PappVEP placed FrACT acuities into correct or neighboring categories in 87 % of cases. Average ssVEP acuity showed little difference to those of FrACT but variance was larger. ROC analysis for typical clinical application showed good performance for all three methods. CONCLUSIONS: The two subjective measurements of acuities are well correlated. Under the conditions of our experiment, sweepVEP results were less variable and had a better repeatability than ssVEP acuities, whose analysis, in contrast to sweepVEP, can be automated. PappVEP estimates, however, offer a viable alternative, that is, quicker but of lower performance regarding the detection of low acuity thresholds. All methods had a good performance regarding minimum acuity detection if an average of two runs is used.
  • 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 tended to overestimate lower FrACT acuities, but showed good repeatability. PappVEP placed FrACT acuities into correct or neighboring categories in 87 % of cases. Average ssVEP acuity showed little difference to those of FrACT but variance was larger. ROC analysis for typical clinical application showed good performance for all three methods. CONCLUSIONS: The two subjective measurements of acuities are well correlated. Under the conditions of our experiment, sweepVEP results were less variable and had a better repeatability than ssVEP acuities, whose analysis, in contrast to sweepVEP, can be automated. PappVEP estimates, however, offer a viable alternative, that is, quicker but of lower performance regarding the detection of low acuity thresholds. All methods had a good performance regarding minimum acuity detection if an average of two runs is used. (en)
Title
  • A comparison of the performance of three visual evoked potential-based methods to estimate visual acuity
  • A comparison of the performance of three visual evoked potential-based methods to estimate visual acuity (en)
skos:prefLabel
  • A comparison of the performance of three visual evoked potential-based methods to estimate visual acuity
  • A comparison of the performance of three visual evoked potential-based methods to estimate visual acuity (en)
skos:notation
  • RIV/00179906:_____/13:10125069!RIV14-MZ0-00179906
http://linked.open...avai/predkladatel
http://linked.open...avai/riv/aktivita
http://linked.open...avai/riv/aktivity
  • N
http://linked.open...iv/cisloPeriodika
  • 1
http://linked.open...vai/riv/dodaniDat
http://linked.open...aciTvurceVysledku
http://linked.open.../riv/druhVysledku
http://linked.open...iv/duvernostUdaju
http://linked.open...titaPredkladatele
http://linked.open...dnocenehoVysledku
  • 58521
http://linked.open...ai/riv/idVysledku
  • RIV/00179906:_____/13:10125069
http://linked.open...riv/jazykVysledku
http://linked.open.../riv/klicovaSlova
  • electrophysiology; visual evoked potentials; visual acuity (en)
http://linked.open.../riv/klicoveSlovo
http://linked.open...odStatuVydavatele
  • NL - Nizozemsko
http://linked.open...ontrolniKodProRIV
  • [F674AB5A2E04]
http://linked.open...i/riv/nazevZdroje
  • Documenta Ophthalmologica
http://linked.open...in/vavai/riv/obor
http://linked.open...ichTvurcuVysledku
http://linked.open...cetTvurcuVysledku
http://linked.open...UplatneniVysledku
http://linked.open...v/svazekPeriodika
  • 126
http://linked.open...iv/tvurceVysledku
  • Langrová, Hana
  • Jägle, Herbert
  • Kurtenbach, Anne
  • Messias, Andre
  • Zrenner, Eberhart
http://linked.open...ain/vavai/riv/wos
  • 000313518700005
issn
  • 0012-4486
number of pages
http://bibframe.org/vocab/doi
  • 10.1007/s10633-012-9359-5
Faceted Search & Find service v1.16.116 as of Feb 22 2024


Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE     Content Formats:   [cxml] [csv]     RDF   [text] [turtle] [ld+json] [rdf+json] [rdf+xml]     ODATA   [atom+xml] [odata+json]     Microdata   [microdata+json] [html]    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3239 as of Feb 22 2024, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Single-Server Edition (126 GB total memory, 82 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software