| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1From the Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, New York; the 2New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, New York; the 3Department of Ophthalmology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York; and the 4Department of Ophthalmology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York.
PURPOSE. To gain better understanding of the relationship between abnormalities detected by the multifocal VEP (mfVEP) compared with those detected by static achromatic, automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma.
METHODS. Fifty patients were studied who had open-angle glaucoma that met the following criteria: (1) a mean deviation (MD) of better than -8 dB in both eyes on the 24-2 Humphrey visual field (HVF) test (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA); and (2) glaucomatous damage in at least one eye, as defined by a glaucomatous optic disc and an abnormal 24-2 HVF test result (pattern standard deviation [PSD] <5% and/or glaucoma hemifield test [GHT] results outside normal limits). Monocular mfVEPs were obtained from each eye by using a pattern-reversal dartboard array, 44.5° in diameter, which contained 60 sectors. Recording electrodes were placed at the inion (I) and I+4 cm, and also at two lateral locations up 1 cm and over 4 cm from I. Monocular and interocular mfVEP probability plots were derived by comparing the results with those of normal control subjects. For both the HVF and mfVEP probability plots, a hemifield was classified as abnormal if three or more contiguous points were significant at less than 5%, with at least one at less than 1%.
RESULTS. Of the 200 hemifields tested (50 patients x two eyes x two hemifields), 75 showed significant clusters on the HVF, and 74 (monocular probability plot) and 93 (monocular or interocular plot) showed significant clusters on the mfVEP. Overall, the HVF and mfVEP results agreed on 74% of the hemifields, and 90 hemifields were normal and 58 were abnormal on both the mfVEP (interocular and/or monocular abnormal) and HVF cluster tests. Of the 52 disagreements, 35 hemifields had a significant cluster on the mfVEP, but not on the HVF, whereas the reverse was true of 17 hemifields. A case-by-case analysis indicated that misses and false-positive results occurred on both the HVF and mfVEP tests.
CONCLUSIONS. As predicted from a theoretical analysis, under these conditions (i.e., the signal-to-noise level) the HVF and monocular mfVEP tests showed a comparable number of defects, and, with the addition of the interocular test, the mfVEP showed more abnormalities than the HVF. However, although there were abnormalities detected by the mfVEP that were missed by the HVF, the reverse was true as well.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  H. Cheng, M. Laron, J. S. Schiffman, R. A. Tang, and L. J. Frishman The Relationship between Visual Field and Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Measurements in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., December 1, 2007; 48(12): 5798 - 5805. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Klistorner, S. Graham, C. Fraser, R. Garrick, T. Nguyen, M. Paine, J. O'Day, J. Grigg, H. Arvind, and F. A. Billson Electrophysiological Evidence for Heterogeneity of Lesions in Optic Neuritis Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., October 1, 2007; 48(10): 4549 - 4556. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D C Hood, N Harizman, F N Kanadani, T M Grippo, S Baharestani, V C Greenstein, J M Liebmann, and R Ritch Retinal nerve fibre thickness measured with optical coherence tomography accurately detects confirmed glaucomatous damage Br. J. Ophthalmol., July 1, 2007; 91(7): 905 - 907. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. J Winn All in the timing Br. J. Ophthalmol., April 1, 2007; 91(4): 406 - 407. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Semela, E Bo Yang, T. R Hedges, L. Vuong, J. G Odel, and D. C Hood Multifocal visual-evoked potential in unilateral compressive optic neuropathy Br. J. Ophthalmol., April 1, 2007; 91(4): 445 - 448. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Fortune, S. Demirel, X. Zhang, D. C. Hood, E. Patterson, A. Jamil, S. L. Mansberger, G. A. Cioffi, and C. A. Johnson Comparing Multifocal VEP and Standard Automated Perimetry in High-Risk Ocular Hypertension and Early Glaucoma Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., March 1, 2007; 48(3): 1173 - 1180. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. O. Duncan, P. A. Sample, R. N. Weinreb, C. Bowd, and L. M. Zangwill Retinotopic Organization of Primary Visual Cortex in Glaucoma: A Method for Comparing Cortical Function with Damage to the Optic Disk Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., February 1, 2007; 48(2): 733 - 744. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. M. Grippo, D. C. Hood, F. N. Kanadani, I. Ezon, V. C. Greenstein, J. M. Liebmann, and R. Ritch A Comparison between Multifocal and Conventional VEP Latency Changes Secondary to Glaucomatous Damage Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., December 1, 2006; 47(12): 5331 - 5336. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F N Kanadani, D C Hood, T M Grippo, B Wangsupadilok, N Harizman, V C Greenstein, J M Liebmann, and R Ritch Structural and functional assessment of the macular region in patients with glaucoma Br. J. Ophthalmol., November 1, 2006; 90(11): 1393 - 1397. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Y. Chen, D. C. Hood, J. G. Odel, and M. M. Behrens The effects of retinal abnormalities on the multifocal visual evoked potential. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., October 1, 2006; 47(10): 4378 - 4385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C Rodarte, D C Hood, E B Yang, T Grippo, V C Greenstein, J M Liebmann, and R Ritch The effects of glaucoma on the latency of the multifocal visual evoked potential Br. J. Ophthalmol., September 1, 2006; 90(9): 1132 - 1136. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. B. Hoffmann, B. Lorenz, M. Preising, and P. S. Seufert Assessment of Cortical Visual Field Representations with Multifocal VEPs in Control Subjects, Patients with Albinism, and Female Carriers of Ocular Albinism. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., July 1, 2006; 47(7): 3195 - 3201. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. V. Danesh-Meyer, S. C. Carroll, B. J. Gaskin, A. Gao, and G. D. Gamble Correlation of the multifocal visual evoked potential and standard automated perimetry in compressive optic neuropathies. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., April 1, 2006; 47(4): 1458 - 1463. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. C. Hood, L. Xu, P. Thienprasiddhi, V. C. Greenstein, J. G. Odel, T. M. Grippo, J. M. Liebmann, and R. Ritch The Pattern Electroretinogram in Glaucoma Patients with Confirmed Visual Field Deficits Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., July 1, 2005; 46(7): 2411 - 2418. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B J Winn, E Shin, J G Odel, V C Greenstein, and D C Hood Interpreting the multifocal visual evoked potential: the effects of refractive errors, cataracts, and fixation errors Br. J. Ophthalmol., March 1, 2005; 89(3): 340 - 344. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Bjerre, J. R. Grigg, N. R. A. Parry, and D. B. Henson Test-Retest Variability of Multifocal Visual Evoked Potential and SITA Standard Perimetry in Glaucoma Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., November 1, 2004; 45(11): 4035 - 4040. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
