The mfERGs were analyzed as has been reported in detail.
17 The first-order kernel local mfERG implicit times were measured by using the template-scaling method.
27 Waveform templates were constructed from the mean local waveforms of the normal subjects. Each template was then multiplicatively scaled in amplitude and time until the maximum achievable least squares fit to the subject’s local response was obtained. The subject’s implicit time for a particular response was then derived as the time from the focal flash onset to the first prominent positive peak (P1) of the response
(Fig. 1B) . The mean and SD of each local mfERG implicit time measure was calculated from the normative data, and these were used to calculate a
z-score for each local mfERG implicit time obtained from the diabetic subjects.
The 103 mfERG hexagonal stimulus elements were grouped into 35 zones
(Figs. 1C 1D) , as reported previously,
17 to be spatially conservative. The zones were arranged in an approximately symmetric manner across the test area. Using zones instead of individual stimulus elements allows for possible spatial mismatches that could occur when mapping retinal lesions identified in photographs onto the mfERG stimulus array. Each zone was assigned the maximum
z-score of the two to three elements that it consisted of. In accord with previous studies,
10 14 we set an a priori rule that elements that had
statfits greater than or equal to 0.75 were not allowed to determine the
z-score for a zone. A
statfit of zero would mean that a response perfectly matched the scaled response template, an unexpected result. Conversely, a
statfit of 1.0 would mean the template fitted the response as well as a flat line, implying that the response was extremely noisy or even absent. A
statfit of less than 0.75 has been shown to indicate a false alarm rate less than 3%.
27 The a priori rule for trace rejection was unnecessary, because 3708 retinal elements (36 eyes × 103 retinal areas) were analyzed via the template scaling method, and none of these had a
statfit greater than or equal to 0.75. The mean ± SD was 0.24 ± 0.09, with a range from 0.06 to 0.63, indicating very good fits of the scaled templates to the local responses.