May 2006
Volume 47, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2006
An Easy and Automated Method for Estimating Receptor Parameters From A–Waves of the ERG
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • C.D. Bhatia
    Columbia University, New York, NY
  • D.C. Hood
    Columbia University, New York, NY
  • M. Lyons
    Univ. of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
  • S.G. Coupland
    Univ. of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
  • D. Birch
    Retina Foundation of the Southwest, Dallas, TX
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  C.D. Bhatia, None; D.C. Hood, None; M. Lyons, None; S.G. Coupland, None; D. Birch, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIH Grant EY09076, EY05235
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2006, Vol.47, 5676. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      C.D. Bhatia, D.C. Hood, M. Lyons, S.G. Coupland, D. Birch; An Easy and Automated Method for Estimating Receptor Parameters From A–Waves of the ERG . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47(13):5676.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose: : The leading edge of the human a–wave of the electroretinogram (ERG) is determined by the sum of the underlying receptor activity.[1] The parameters of a model of rod phototransduction [2], while usually determined with a set of 4 or more flash intensities and a fitting program [3,4], can be estimated with only one or two flash intensities and a simple, cursor method.[5] Here this simple cursor method is automated in a widely available spreadsheet program.

Methods: : Full–field ERGs were recorded from 50 patients with RP with a contact lens electrode (GoldLens, DiagnosysLLC). Four white flashes, 4.4, 4.0, 3.7 and 3.3 log scot td–s were presented in the dark and on a rod–suppressing background. Rod–only responses were isolated with a subtraction method.[4,5] An equation based upon a model of rod transduction was fitted and yielded two parameters, S (sensitivity) and RmP3, maximum response. The cursor (C) method: Using only the response to the 4.0 log td–s flash (1–flash method) or 4.4 and 3.7 log scot td–s (2–flash method), a horizontal line was drawn at the maximum a–wave peak to estimate Amax. To estimate tAmax, a diagonal line was drawn along the leading edge of the a–wave of the 4.0 log scot td–s flash (1–flash method) or the 3.7 log scot td–s flash (2–flash method). The location on the x–axis of the intersection of the two lines defines tAmax. An EXCEL program (X method) was developed to automatically estimate tAmax and Amax.

Results: : The cursor and X methods showed extremely good agreement with correlation r–values of essentially 1.0 for the parameters, Amax and tAmax, for both the 1– and 2–flash methods. The slopes of the regression lines were essentially 1.0 for Amax, and were 1.02 (1–flash) and 0.98 (2–flash) for tAmax.

Conclusions: : The automated, spreadsheet method can be used to estimate rod receptor parameters. It should be relatively easy to incorporate the algorithm into the software of commercial equipment so that estimates of these parameters can be easily obtained in the clinic with either the 1– or 2–flash method. 1. Hood & Birch (1990) VNS. 2. Lamb & Pugh (1992) JP; 3. Breton et al (1994) IOVS. 4. Hood & Birch (1994) IOVS; 5. Hood & Birch (2005), chapter

Keywords: electroretinography: clinical • photoreceptors • electrophysiology: clinical 

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.