May 2003
Volume 44, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2003
Multifocal Electroretinography: Comparison of Repeatability Between 30 HZ Flicker and Conventional First Order Kernel Stimulation
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • B.A. Mazinani
    Ophthalmology, University of Aachen, Aachen, Germany
  • T. Repas
    Ophthalmology, University of Aachen, Aachen, Germany
  • A.W. Weinberger
    Ophthalmology, University of Aachen, Aachen, Germany
  • N.F. Schrage
    Ophthalmology, University of Aachen, Aachen, Germany
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  B.A.E. Mazinani, None; T. Repas, None; A.W.A. Weinberger, None; N.F. Schrage, None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2003, Vol.44, 2700. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      B.A. Mazinani, T. Repas, A.W. Weinberger, N.F. Schrage; Multifocal Electroretinography: Comparison of Repeatability Between 30 HZ Flicker and Conventional First Order Kernel Stimulation . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2003;44(13):2700.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: In multifocal 30 Hz-stimulation, each step of the M-sequence consists of three consecutive 30 Hz flashes. The resulting amplitudes can be calculated by means of a Fourier analysis at 30 Hz. By this method, amplitudes can be calculated without the setting of cursors or the localization of extrema. Purpose of this study is to compare the re-test stability of this method to the conventional MF-ERG stimulation. Methods: We examined 10 healthy subjects using a RETI-scan device (Roland Instr., Wiesbaden) and stimulated by an ELSA 20"-VGA-monitor. As resolution we used 61 hexagons within a 24 deg. visual field. Examination time was 4 minutes. We compared classic first order kernel stimulation with multifocal 30 Hz flicker stimulation. Results: Repeatability was calculated using coefficients of variation. Both methods came to coefficients of under 20% for the amplitude of the b-wave. We found no significant difference in the size of the amplitudes between the two stimulation methods neither in the interindividual stability (standard deviation of the amplitudes). Conclusions: This study showed no significant loss of inter- or intraindividual stability of examination results of the 30 Hz Flicker stimulation in comparison to the conventional first order kernel method. Since the 30 Hz flicker method does not require to define peaks to calculate the amplitudes, we believe that by this means a common source of error can be reduced in calculating the amplitudes of impaired curves with unclear shape.

Keywords: electroretinography: non-clinical • electrophysiology: non-clinical • retina 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×