Purchase this article with an account.
Toshiko Arai, Celso Soiti Matsumoto, Kei Shinoda, Takaaki Kondo, Makoto Kawashima, Atsushi Mizota; What monitor can replace cathode ray tube for visual stimulation to elicit multifocal electroretinograms ?. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014;55(13):5115.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To compare organic electro-luminescence (OEL) and liquid crystal display (LCD) screens as visual stimulators to elicit mfERGs.
Multifocal ERGs (mfERGs) were recorded from 7 eyes of 7 healthy volunteers (21±2 years). The mfERGs elicited by a conventional cathode ray tube (CRT) screen (S710,Compaq Computer Co., USA) were compared with those elicited by a studio grade master OEL monitor (BVM-E170, Sony, Japan), and conventional LCD (S1721, Flexscan, Eizo Nanao Corp, Japan). The luminance changes of each monitor were measured with a photodiode. The CRT, LCD, and OEL screens with frame frequency of 60 Hz were studied. A hexagonal stimulus array with 61 stimulus elements was created on each monitor.
The serial white stimuli of the OEL screen at 60 Hz did not overlap, while that of the LCD screens overlapped. The amplitude of P1 and P2 of the first-order kernels of the mfERGs were not significantly different between the CRT and OEL screens, while the P1 amplitude of the first-order kernel elicited by the LCD stimuli was significantly smaller than that elicited by CRT in all the groups of the averaged hexagonal elements. The implicit time was approximately 10 msec longer in almost all components elicited by LCD compared to those elicited by CRT.
The mfERGs elicited by monitors other than CRT should be carefully interpreted especially those elicited by LCD screens. The OEL had good performance and we conclude that it can replace CRT as a stimulator for mfERGs, however normative data collection is recommended.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only