July 2018
Volume 59, Issue 9
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   July 2018
Comparison of the uniform field and pattern ERG in humans
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Stuart G Coupland
    Ophthalmology, Univ of Ottawa Eye Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  • Lynca Kantungane
    Ophthalmology, Univ of Ottawa Eye Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  • Rustum Karanjia
    Ophthalmology, Univ of Ottawa Eye Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  • Jon Brownstein
    Ophthalmology, Univ of Ottawa Eye Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Stuart Coupland, Diagnosys LLC (C); Lynca Kantungane, Diagnosys LLC (C); Rustum Karanjia, None; Jon Brownstein, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science July 2018, Vol.59, 5017. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Stuart G Coupland, Lynca Kantungane, Rustum Karanjia, Jon Brownstein; Comparison of the uniform field and pattern ERG in humans
      . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2018;59(9):5017.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : The pattern electroretinogram (PERG) is the electroretinal response to contrast reversal of pattern stimuli which reflects functional integrity of retinal ganglion cells and their axons. The uniform field electroretinogram (UF-ERG) to stepwise luminance modulation of low temporal frequency allows the separation of responses to light increments and decrements (Viswanathan et al. 2000) and has been described in non-human primates with experimental glaucoma. The UF-ERG has not been previously described in human subjects.

Methods : UF-ERG and PERG were recorded in 18 subjects (36 eyes) aged 20-75 years. For UF-ERG luminance modulation was provided by an 800x600 pixel OLED stimulator (Diagnosys LLC) subtending a 24x32 degree viewing angle producing a luminance of 300 cd/m2 for a 200 msec duration. 220 replications of 230 msec sweep duration were obtained at both stimulus onset and stimulus offset and averaged. The PERG was recorded to .8 degree checksize at 2 reversals/second and 150 sweeps were signal averaged.

Results : There was a significant difference in peak latency of the P50 component of the UF-ERG and PERG (p<.0001). No significant difference was found in the N95 component peak latency. In addition, there were no significant differences in P50 or N95 amplitude measures.

Conclusions : The UF-ERG can be reliably recorded in human subjects. The response is similar in amplitude to the PERG P50 and N95 components. The obvious advantages of using a non-patterned stimulus which does not require steady fixation and refractive correction make the UF-ERG an ideal stimulus for clinical investigation of optic neuropathy.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2018 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Honolulu, Hawaii, April 29 - May 3, 2018.

×
×

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.

×