https://doi.org/10.4081/itjm.2022.1556

Pattern and sweep visual evoked potential in the objective determination of visual acuity

Vol. 16 No. 1 (2022)
Published: 30 December 2022
Visual acuity, pattern visual evoked potential, sweep visual evoked potential.
Abstract Views: 885
PDF: 223
HTML: 83
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

Mualla (Şahin) Hamurcu
hamurcu2003@yahoo.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2479-3004
Department of Ophthalmology, Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.

The purpose was to investigate the effects of pattern visual evoked potential (pVEP) and sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP) on the accurate visual acuity (VA) measurement in adults. Medical files of 282 eyes of 141 patients who underwent VA measurement in our electrophysiology laboratory and did not undergo simulation were retrospectively analyzed. The VA was measured using the Snellen chart. Only those with a VA of higher than 1/10 on the Snellen chart were included in the study. The VA was assessed and reported by the pVEP (VA-pVEP) and sVEP test (VA-sVEP). The correlation analysis was performed using the Pearson correlation analysis. Of 141 patients, 92 were males and 49 were females with a mean age of 37.7±18.4 years. There was a strong positive correlation between the VA measured by the Snellen chart and the VA measured by pVEP (VApVEP) (r=0.858, P<0.001). There was a weak positive correlation (r=0.267, P<0.001) between the VA measured by the Snellen chart and the VA measured by the sVEP (VA-sVEP). A weak positive correlation was found for the VA-pVEP and VA-sVEP (r=0.313, P<0.001). For the measurement of the degree of the VA, it seems reasonable to use pVEP initially, while sVEP should be used in cases with short attention span and those who are noncooperative and in infants.

Dimensions

Altmetric

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

PlumX Metrics

PlumX Metrics  provide insights into the ways people interact with individual pieces of research output (articles, conference proceedings, book chapters, and many more) in the online environment. Examples include, when research is mentioned in the news or is tweeted about. Collectively known as PlumX Metrics, these metrics are divided into five categories to help make sense of the huge amounts of data involved and to enable analysis by comparing like with like.

Citations

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC
Weinstein GW. Clinical aspects of the visually evoked potential. Ophthalmic Surg 1978;9:56-65.
Arden GB, Lewis DR. The pattern visual evoked response in the assessment of visual acuity. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K 1973;93:39-48.
Jeon J, Oh S, Kyung S. Assessment of visual disability using visual evoked potentials BMC Ophthalmol 2012;12:36.
Szabela DA, Pałenga-Pydyn D. Usefulness of visual evoked potentials in visual acuity examination]. Klin Oczna 2001;103:141-5.
Odom JV, Bach M, Brigell M, et al. ISCEV standard for clinical visual evoked potentials. (2016 update). Doc Ophthalmol 2016;133:1-9.
Harding GFA. Visual evoked cortical potentials. Basic recording. In: Heckenlively JR, Arden GB, eds. Principles and practice of clinical electrophysiology and vision. St Louis, MO: Mosby Year Book; 1991. pp 398-407.
Gündoğan FÇ, Sobacı G, Erdurman C, Hamurcu MŞ. The correlations between simultaneously recorded pattern visual evoked cortical potentials and pattern electroretinogram. Gulhane Med J 2009;51:34-8.
de Freitas Dotto P, Cavascan NN, Berezovsky A, et al. Sweep visually evoked potentials and visual findings in children with West syndrome. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 2014;18:201-10.
Gündoğan FC, Kılıç S, Hamurcu MŞ, et al. Pattern visual evoked response (PVER) test our normal values. Gülhane Med J 2005;47:247-50.
Gundogan FC, Sobaci G, Bayer A. Pattern visual evoked potentials in the assessment of visual acuity in malingering. Ophthalmology 2007;114:2332-7.
Halliday AM, McDonald WI. Visual evoked potentials. In Stalberg E, Young RR, eds. Neurology I: clinical neurophysiology. London: Butterworths; 1981. pp 228-258.
Regan D. Rapid objective refraction using evoked brain potentials. Invest Ophthalmol 1973;12:669-79.
Tyler CW, Apkarian P, Levi DM, Nakayama K. Rapid assessment of visual function: an electronic sweep technique for the pattern visual evoked potential. Invest. Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1979;18:703-13.
Tyler CW, Nakayama K, Apkarian P, Levi DM. VEP assessment of visual function. Vision Res 1981;21:607-9.
Norcia AM, Tyler CW, Piecuch R, et al. Visual acuity development in normal and abnormal preterm human infants. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 1987;24:70-4.
Hamer RD, Norcia AM, Tyler CW, Hsu-Winges C. The development of monocular and binocular VEP acuity. Vision Res 1989;29:397-408.
Gottlob I, Fendick MG, Guo S, et al. Visual acuity measurements by swept spatial frequency visual-evoked-cortical potentials (VECPs): clinical application in children with various visual disorders. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 1990;27:40-7.
Thompson DA, Moller H, Russell-Eggitt I, et al. Visual acuity in unilateral cataract. Br J Ophthalmol 1996;80:794-8.
Katsumi O, Arai M, Wajima R, et al. Spatial frequency sweep pattern reversal VER acuity vs snellen visual acuity: effect of optical defocus. Vision Res 1996;36:903-9.
Strasburger H, Remky A, Murray IJ, et al. Objective measurement of contrast sensitivity and visual acuity with the steady-state visual evoked potential. Ger J Ophthalmol 1996;5:42-52.
Ridder WH 3rd, McCulloch D, Herbert AM. Stimulus duration, neural adaptation, and sweep visual evoked potential acuity estimates. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1998;39:2759-68.
Ridder WH 3rd. Methods of visual acuity determination with the spatial frequency sweep visual evoked potential. Doc Ophthalmol 2004;109:239-47.
Arai M, Katsumi O, Paranhos FRL, et al. Comparison of Snellen acuity and objective assessment using the spatial frequency sweep PVER. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1997;235:442-7.
Allen D, Bennett PJ, Banks MS. The effects of luminance on FPL and VEP acuity in human infants. Vision Res 1992;32:2005-12.
Bradfield YS, France TD, Verhoeve J, Gangnon RE. Sweep visual evoked potential testing as a predictor of recognition acuity in albinism. Arch Ophthalmol 2007;125:628-33.
Ridder WH, Rouse MW. Predicting potential acuities in amblyopes: Predicting posttherapy acuity in amblyopes. Doc Ophthalmol 2007;114:135-45.
Vedentham V, Ratnagiri PK. The Sweep-VEP: A faster estimation of visual acuity in preverbal children. Indian J Ophthalmol 2004;52:175-7.
Prager TC, Zou YL, Jensen CL, et al. Evaluation of methods for assessing visual function of infants. J AAPOS 1999;3:275-82.

How to Cite

Hamurcu, M. (Şahin). (2022). Pattern and sweep visual evoked potential in the objective determination of visual acuity. Italian Journal of Medicine, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.4081/itjm.2022.1556
Copyright (c) 2022 the Author(s) Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.