Abstract
Purpose
Objective assessment of visual acuity (VA) is possible with VEP methodology, but established with sufficient precision only for vision better than about 1.0 logMAR. We here explore whether this can be extended down to 2.0 logMAR, highly desirable for low-vision evaluations.
Methods
Based on the stepwise sweep algorithm (Bach et al. in Br J Ophthalmol 92:396–403, 2008) VEPs to monocular steady-state brief onset pattern stimulation (7.5-Hz checkerboards, 40% contrast, 40 ms on, 93 ms off) were recorded for eight different check sizes, from 0.5° to 9.0°, for two runs with three occipital electrodes in a Laplace-approximating montage. We examined 22 visually normal participants where acuity was reduced to ≈ 2.0 logMAR with frosted transparencies. With the established heuristic algorithm the “VEP acuity” was extracted and compared to psychophysical VA, both obtained at 57 cm distance.
Results
In 20 of the 22 participants with artificially reduced acuity the automatic analysis indicated a valid result (1.80 logMAR on average) in at least one of the two runs. 95% test–retest limits of agreement on average were ± 0.09 logMAR for psychophysical, and ± 0.21 logMAR for VEP-derived acuity. For 15 participants we obtained results in both runs and averaged them. In 12 of these 15 the low-acuity results stayed within the 95% confidence interval (± 0.3 logMAR) as established by Bach et al. (2008).
Conclusions
The fully automated analysis yielded good agreement of psychophysical and electrophysiological VAs in 12 of 15 cases (80%) in the low-vision range down to 2.0 logMAR. This encourages us to further pursue this methodology and assess its value in patients.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Holder GE (2006) Electrodiagnostic testing in malingering and hysteria. In: Heckenlively J, Arden G (eds) Principles and practice of clinical electrophysiology of vision. MIT Press, Cambridge, London, pp 637–641
Katsumi O, Arai M, Wajima R et al (1996) Spatial frequency sweep pattern reversal VER acuity vs Snellen visual acuity: effect of optical defocus. Vis Res 36:903–909
Arai M, Katsumi O, Paranhos FR et al (1997) Comparison of Snellen acuity and objective assessment using the spatial frequency sweep PVER. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 235:442–447
Ridder WH III (2004) Methods of visual acuity determination with the spatial frequency sweep visual evoked potential. Doc Ophthalmol 109:239–247
Bach M, Maurer JP, Wolf ME (2008) Visual evoked potential-based acuity assessment in normal vision, artificially degraded vision, and in patients. Br J Ophthalmol 92:396–403. doi:10.1136/bjo.2007.130245
Mackay AM, Bradnam MS, Hamilton R et al (2008) Real-time rapid acuity assessment using VEPs: development and validation of the step VEP technique. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49:438–441
American Foundation for the Blind (2008) Key definitions of statistical terms—American Foundation for the Blind. http://www.afb.org/info/blindness-statistics/key-definitions-of-statistical-terms/25. Accessed 17 Dec 2016
World Health Organisation (2016) ICD-10 Version:2016. http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2016/en#/H54.3. Accessed 3 Jun 2017
Tyler C, Apkarian P (1982) Properties of localized pattern evoked potentials. In: Bodis-Wollner I (ed) Evoked Potentials. The New York Academy of Sciences, New York
Strasburger H (1987) The analysis of steady state evoked potentials revisited. Clin Vision Sci 1:245–256
Bach M, Joost W (1989) VEP vs spatial frequency at high contrast: Subjects have either a bimodal or single-peaked response function. In: Kulikowski J, Dickinson C, Murray I (eds) Seeing contour and colour. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 478–484
Parry NR, Murray IJ, Hadjizenonos C (1999) Spatio-temporal tuning of VEPs: effect of mode of stimulation. Vis Res 39:3491–3497
Meigen T, Bach M (1999) On the statistical significance of electrophysiological steady-state responses. Doc Ophthalmol 98:207–232
Norcia AM, Tyler CW, Hamer RD, Wesemann W (1989) Measurement of spatial contrast sensitivity with the swept contrast VEP. Vis Res 29:627–637
Norcia AM, Clarke M, Tyler CW (1985) Digital filtering and robust regression techniques for estimating sensory thresholds from the evoked potential. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 4:26–32
Tyler CW, Apkarian P, Levi DM, Nakayama K (1979) Rapid assessment of visual function: an electronic sweep technique for the pattern visual evoked potential. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 18:703–713
Jägle H, Zobor D, Brauns T (2010) Accommodation limits induced optical defocus in defocus experiments. Doc Ophthalmol 121:103–109. doi:10.1007/s10633-010-9237-y
Heinrich SP, Krüger K, Bach M (2010) The effect of optotype presentation duration on acuity estimates revisited. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 248:389–394. doi:10.1007/s00417-009-1268-2
World Medical Association (2000) Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. J Am Med Assoc 284:3043–3045
Bach M (2007) The freiburg visual acuity test—variability unchanged by post hoc re-analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 245:965–971
Bach M (1996) The freiburg visual acuity test—automatic measurement of visual acuity. Optom Vis Sci 73:49–53
Heinrich TS, Bach M (2001) Contrast adaptation in human retina and cortex. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42:2721–2727
Bach M, Meigen T, Strasburger H (1997) Raster-scan cathode-ray tubes for vision research—limits of resolution in space, time and intensity, and some solutions. Spat Vis 10:403–414
Odom JV, Bach M, Brigell M et al (2016) ISCEV standard for clinical visual evoked potentials: (2016 update). Doc Ophthalmol 133:1–9. doi:10.1007/s10633-016-9553-y
Fahle M, Bach M (2006) Basics of the VEP. In: Heckenlively J, Arden G (eds) Principles and Practice of clinical electrophysiology of vision. MIT Press, Cambridge, London, pp 207–234
Bach M, Meigen T (1999) Do’s and don’ts in Fourier analysis of steady-state potentials. Doc Ophthalmol 99:69–82
Mackay AM, Hamilton R, Bradnam MS (2003) Faster and more sensitive VEP recording in children. Doc Ophthalmol 107:251–259
Bach M (2007) Freiburg evoked potentials. http://www.michaelbach.de/ep2000.html. Accessed 19 Aug 2013
Wenner Y, Heinrich SP, Beisse C et al (2014) Visual evoked potential-based acuity assessment: overestimation in amblyopia. Doc Ophthalmol 128:191–200. doi:10.1007/s10633-014-9432-3
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent–licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.
Statement of human rights
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Statement on the welfare of animals
This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hoffmann, M.B., Brands, J., Behrens-Baumann, W. et al. VEP-based acuity assessment in low vision. Doc Ophthalmol 135, 209–218 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-017-9613-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-017-9613-y