Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE: To investigate the correlation of a structural measure of the macular area (optical coherence tomography (OCT)) with two functional measures (10-2 Humphrey visual field (HVF) and multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP)) of macular function. METHODS: 55 eyes with open-angle glaucoma were enrolled. The 10-2 HVF was defined as abnormal if clusters of > or =3 points with p<5%, one of which had p<1%, were present. The mfVEP was abnormal if probability plots had > or =2 adjacent points with p<1%, or > or =3 adjacent points with p<5% and at least one of these points with p<1%. Two criteria were used for the macular OCT: (I) > or =2 sectors with p<5% or 1 sector with p<1% and (II) 1 sector with p<5%. RESULTS: 54 of the 55 eyes showed an abnormal 10-2 HVF and 50 had central mfVEP defects. The two OCT criteria resulted in sensitivities of 85% and 91%. When both functional tests showed a defect (in 49 eyes), the OCT was abnormal in 45. For the OCT the outer and inner inferior regions were the most likely to be abnormal, and both functional techniques were most abnormal in the superior hemifield. CONCLUSIONS: Good agreement exists between macular thickness and functional defects in patients with glaucoma. Study of the macular region may provide a quantitative measure for disease staging and monitoring

AIMS: To determine the effect of glaucomatous damage on the latency of the multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP). METHODS: Monocular mfVEPs were recorded from a glaucoma group (n = 50) defined by a glaucomatous disc and an abnormal visual field and a control group (n = 47). 25 patients were characterised as normal tension glaucoma (NTG) and 25 as high tension glaucoma (HTG). Monocular and interocular latency analyses of the more affected eye were obtained using custom software. RESULTS: On interocular analysis, both the HTG and NTG groups showed a statistically significant increase in mean mfVEP latency with average relative latencies and percentage of points with significant delays of 1.7 ms and 10.3% (HTG) and 1.3 ms and 8.2% (NTG) compared to -0.3 ms and 2.7% (controls). On monocular analysis, only the HTG group showed a significant increase in latency with measures of 5.7 ms and 14.6% (HTG) compared to 3.2 ms and 10.6% (NTG) and 2.1 ms and 9.6% (controls). Using the 95th percentile of a normative group as the cut off, the sensitivity ranged from 20% to 38% and the specificity from 87% to 100% with the interocular analysis providing the best discrimination, CONCLUSION: Although up to 40% of patients showed delays in the mfVEP latency, these delays were modest, on average a few milliseconds. These results differ markedly from those of a recent conventional VEP study, which reported 100% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and an average delay that exceeded 25 ms

PURPOSE: To determine whether the multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) technique can detect early functional damage in ocular hypertensive (OHT) and glaucoma suspect (GS) patients with normal standard achromatic automated perimetry (SAP) results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-five GS patients (25 eyes), 25 patients with OHT (25 eyes), and 50 normal controls (50 eyes) were enrolled in this study. All GS, OHT and normal control eyes had normal SAP as defined by a pattern standard deviation and mean deviation within the 95% confidence interval and a glaucoma hemifield test within normal limits on the Humphrey visual field 24-2 program. Eyes with GS had optic disc changes consistent with glaucoma with or without raised intraocular pressure (IOP), and eyes with OHT showed no evidence of glaucomatous optic neuropathy and IOPs >or=22 mm Hg. Monocular mfVEPs were obtained from both eyes of each subject using a pattern-reversal dartboard array with 60 sectors. The entire display had a radius of 22.3 degrees. The mfVEPs, for each eye, were defined as abnormal when either the monocular or interocular probability plot had a cluster of 3 or more contiguous points with P<0.05 and at least 2 of these points with P<0.01. RESULTS: The mfVEP results were abnormal in 4% of the eyes from normal subjects. Abnormal mfVEPs were detected in 20% of the eyes of GS patients and 16% of the eyes of OHT patients. Significantly more mfVEP abnormalities were detected in GS patients than in normal controls. However, there was no significant difference in mfVEP results between OHT patients and normal controls. CONCLUSIONS: The mfVEP technique can detect visual field deficits in a minority of eyes with glaucomatous optic disks and normal SAP results

Our aim was to determine whether patients with retinitis pigmentosa show differences in L- and M-cone multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) responses that are eccentricity dependent, as has been shown for control subjects. Second, we compared the losses for mfVEPs to losses on achromatic visual field and multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) measures in the patients. Monocular mfVEPs were recorded to a pattern reversing display that modulated only the L- or M-cones. Also, standard automated achromatic visual fields and mfERGs were obtained. For the control subjects, the ratio of L-cone to M-cone mfVEP amplitudes increased as a function of retinal eccentricity. For the patients, the ratio did not vary with eccentricity. For all measures, responses were least affected for the first ring (central 2.4 degrees ) and most affected for the third ring (11.6 degrees - 44.4 degrees ). For the first ring, mfERG amplitudes were more impaired than were the mfVEPs or the visual field thresholds. For most of the patients, there was local response correspondence among our measures of visual function

PURPOSE: To better understand the relationship between the amplitude of the pattern electroretinogram (PERG) and visual loss, measured with static automated perimetry. METHODS: Transient PERGs were recorded in 15 patients (31-77 years) and 16 normal individuals (26-65 years). An eye was considered to have glaucomatous damage only if there was an abnormal disc, an abnormal 24-2 Humphrey visual field result (pattern stand deviation, glaucoma hemifield test, and cluster) and an abnormal multifocal visual evoked potential. All the worse (more affected) eyes of the patients and six of the better eyes met these criteria. The N95 amplitude of the PERG was measured from the positive peak (P50) at approximately 50 ms to the trough at approximately 95 ms. The ratio of N95 to P50-the N95 amplitude divided by the P50 amplitude-was also measured. RESULTS: First, the PERG was within normal limits for 4 (26.7%) of the worse eyes. Overall, 6 (28.6%) of the 21 eyes that met the criteria for glaucomatous damage had normal PERGs on both PERG measures. Because the normal individuals were younger than the patients, an even larger number of normal PERGs might be expected with an age-appropriate control group. Second, the N95 amplitude was nonlinearly related to visual field sensitivity when sensitivity was plotted on a linear plot. Small field losses were associated with disproportionately large losses in PERG amplitude. Third, the PERG from both eyes of a patient were very similar, even when the visual fields suggested very different levels of damage. CONCLUSIONS: These results are consistent with the view that very early damage can affect the PERG, even before the visual field shows a loss. At the same time, it is clear that patients with clear glaucomatous damage can have normal-appearing PERGs. An explanation is proposed to account for these findings

We examined the effects of inter-modal attention and mental arithmetic on Humphrey visual field sensitivity and multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) amplitude. Four normally sighted subjects (ages ranging from 24 to 58 years) participated in this study. Monocular visual field sensitivity was measured under two conditions: (1) standard testing condition and (2) while the subject performed a Paced Auditory Serial Addition Task (PASAT). Monocular mfVEPs were recorded in response to a 60-sector stimulus. The checkerboard pattern in each sector was contrast reversed according to a binary m-sequence. mfVEPs were recorded under two conditions: (1) standard testing conditions and (2) while the subject performed a PASAT. We found that, when compared to the no-task condition, all subjects had locations of significantly reduced Humphrey visual field sensitivities when performing the PASAT. In contrast, there were no significant decreases in mfVEP amplitude in any sector for any of the subjects while performing the PASAT. Our findings indicate that divided attention and ongoing mental processes did not affect the mfVEP. Therefore, the mfVEP provides an objective measure of visual field function that may be useful for some patients with unreliable automated static perimetry results

AIM: To understand how refractive errors, cataracts, and fixation errors affect multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) responses. METHODS: Monocular mfVEP responses were obtained using a pattern reversal dartboard display. For the control condition, visual acuity was corrected to > or =20/20 and foveal fixation was maintained. The right eye was tested under the following conditions: simulated refractive error, simulated cataract, steady eccentric fixation, and unsteady fixation. RESULTS: No subject demonstrated significant abnormalities under control conditions. For the simulated refractive error condition, significant centrally located abnormalities were seen for all subjects. For the simulated cataract condition, significant abnormalities were found for three subjects. The steady eccentric fixation condition yielded abnormalities in both eyes for all subjects while the unsteady fixation condition yielded significant central abnormalities in the tested eye. With eccentric and unsteady fixation conditions, all subjects had at least one sector with a waveform polarity reversal. CONCLUSIONS: While the mfVEP is a useful tool for identifying local optic nerve damage or ruling out non-organic aetiology of visual field defects, factors such as uncorrected refractive errors, cataract, eccentric fixation, and unsteady fixation can produce apparent field defects on the mfVEP. With care, these problems can be correctly identified

We examined the reliability of Humphrey visual field thresholds and multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) amplitudes and timing in a group of patients with Retinitis Pigmentosa (RP). Eight patients with RP and seven control subjects were tested five times: at baseline (visit #0), at three weekly follow-up visits (visits #1 - #3), and at three months (visit #4). For the Humphrey thresholds, differences between dB values on repeat visits were obtained. Differences between log values on repeat visits were calculated for mfERG amplitude and implicit time. We used the standard deviations of these difference scores as a measure of reliability and the means of the difference scores as a measure of progression. We found that the majority of the patients' repeat data were more variable than that of the control subjects for both the Humphrey and mfERG. We found no single factor that predicted the magnitude, or the variance, of the SD of differences scores for the patients. We recommend that each patient's reliability be assessed individually. Ultimately, the choice of an outcome measure must be guided by its reliability, as well as its ability to assess the visual function of interest

The purpose of this study was to investigate atypical multifocal ERG (mfERG) responses for patients with diseases that can affect the photoreceptors. MfERGS were obtained from seven patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP), three with progressive cone dystrophy (CD) and eight with diabetic retinopathy (DR). Both first- and second-order kernel responses were analyzed. The amplitudes and implicit times of the first-order responses were compared to those obtained from age-similar controls. For the first slice of the second-order response, the root-mean-square (RMS) and the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of each response were calculated. Achromatic visual fields were also obtained from each subject. For the three groups of patients, first-order responses with relatively large amplitudes, broad-shaped waveforms and markedly increased implicit times had non-measurable second-order responses. These responses were associated with areas of decreased visual field sensitivity. As RP, CD and DR affect the outer retina, the results are consistent with damage to the outer plexiform layer rather than damage to the inner retina