June 2015
Volume 56, Issue 7
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2015
Intensity response function of the Photopic Negative Response (PhNR)
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Nabin Joshi
    Vision Science, SUNY College of Optometry, New York, NY
    SUNY Eye Institute, New York, NY
  • Emma Ly
    Southern California College of Optometry, Marshall B. Ketchum University, Fullerton, CA
  • Suresh Viswanathan
    Biological and Vision Science, State University of New York, New York, NY
    SUNY Eye Institute, New York, NY
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Nabin Joshi, None; Emma Ly, None; Suresh Viswanathan, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2015, Vol.56, 487. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Nabin Joshi, Emma Ly, Suresh Viswanathan; Intensity response function of the Photopic Negative Response (PhNR). Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2015;56(7 ):487.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose: The Photopic negative response (PhNR) is a slow negative potential of retinal ganglion cell origin in the cone mediate flash electroretinogram (ERG). We assessed the effect of age and test-retest reliability of the PhNR intensity response parameters in normal healthy subjects.

Methods: PhNRs were recorded using DTL fiber electrodes with a ganzfeld system (Diagnosys LLC), from 28 normal healthy subjects (23-71 years) with dilated pupils on two different days. Stimuli consisted of brief (<5 ms) red flashes ranging from -2.2 to 0.8 log phot cd.s/m2 on a 2 scot cd/ m2 blue background. The PhNR intensity response was fitted with Naka-Rushton equation with slope fixed at 1. The effect of age was evaluated on the saturated amplitude (Vmax) and semi-saturation constant (K - intensity at 50% Vmax) parameters derived from the fits. Test-retest reliability of these parameters was assessed with Bland-Altman analysis.<br />

Results: K was positively correlated with Vmax (r=0.57, m=0.019, p=0.002) and both Vmax (r=0.5, m= -0.26, p=0.007) and K (r=0.51, m= -0.009, p=0.006) were negatively correlated with age. Bland-Altman analysis indicated a mean test-retest difference of -0.98 mv for Vmax -0.07 log cd.s/m2 for K that are clinically acceptable. The 95% limits of agreement (1.96 x SD of the test-retest difference) was 15.7 mv for Vmax and 0.7 log cd.s/m2 for K. The test-retest differences were not correlated with age or the magnitude of the measures.

Conclusions: The Vmax and K of the PhNR intensity-response function reduces as a function of age. The reduction in K with age is likely the consequence of the PhNR amplitude saturating at lower stimulus strengths. The average test-retest difference in these response parameters is small suggesting that the they could be potentially useful as an objective measure to explore progressive changes in inner-retinal function in disease states.


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.