Comparison of ring 1 parameters in 37-segment multifocal electroretinography between onset and offset conditions of ring 2 to 4 in normal subjects

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

AIM: To investigate whether the response of a central hexagonal element corresponding to the macular area in conventional multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) tests was the same as that of experimental mfERG using single central hexagonal element stimulation. ● METHODS: Prospective, observational study. Thirty healthy subjects were included in this study. mfERG recordings were performed according to two protocols: stimulus with 37 hexagonal elements (protocol 1), and stimulus with a single central element created by deactivating the other 36 hexagonal elements (protocol 2). We compared differences between ring 1 parameters in each protocol. ● RESULTS: In protocol 1, the first positive component (P1) implicit time and P1 amplitude were 37.8±1.8ms and 6.3±2.7 µV. After single element stimulation (protocol 2), double positive waves appeared. The implicit time and amplitude of P1 were 40.7±2.4ms (P<0.001) and 9.1±3.3 μV (P=0.001), respectively. The implicit time and amplitude of the second positive component (P2) were 68.0±4.5ms (P<0.001, compared with P1 in protocol 1) and 12.3±4.7 µV (P<0.001, compared with P1 in protocol 1), respectively. The amplitude of P2 in protocol 2 was about two times higher than that of P1 in protocol 1. ● CONCLUSION: mfERG responses of a central hexagonal element in a single element stimulation protocol are different from those of multiple element stimulation. The positive wave is more enhanced compared to that of the conventional protocol and it elongated into two wavelets.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)73-78
Number of pages6
JournalInternational Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume12
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Electroretinography
Observational Studies
Healthy Volunteers
Prospective Studies

Keywords

  • Focal electroretinography
  • Macular function
  • Multifocal electroretinography
  • Single element stimulation
  • Stray light effect

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

@article{5dd06247fe404a5db21a545bd086f3be,
title = "Comparison of ring 1 parameters in 37-segment multifocal electroretinography between onset and offset conditions of ring 2 to 4 in normal subjects",
abstract = "AIM: To investigate whether the response of a central hexagonal element corresponding to the macular area in conventional multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) tests was the same as that of experimental mfERG using single central hexagonal element stimulation. ● METHODS: Prospective, observational study. Thirty healthy subjects were included in this study. mfERG recordings were performed according to two protocols: stimulus with 37 hexagonal elements (protocol 1), and stimulus with a single central element created by deactivating the other 36 hexagonal elements (protocol 2). We compared differences between ring 1 parameters in each protocol. ● RESULTS: In protocol 1, the first positive component (P1) implicit time and P1 amplitude were 37.8±1.8ms and 6.3±2.7 µV. After single element stimulation (protocol 2), double positive waves appeared. The implicit time and amplitude of P1 were 40.7±2.4ms (P<0.001) and 9.1±3.3 μV (P=0.001), respectively. The implicit time and amplitude of the second positive component (P2) were 68.0±4.5ms (P<0.001, compared with P1 in protocol 1) and 12.3±4.7 µV (P<0.001, compared with P1 in protocol 1), respectively. The amplitude of P2 in protocol 2 was about two times higher than that of P1 in protocol 1. ● CONCLUSION: mfERG responses of a central hexagonal element in a single element stimulation protocol are different from those of multiple element stimulation. The positive wave is more enhanced compared to that of the conventional protocol and it elongated into two wavelets.",
keywords = "Focal electroretinography, Macular function, Multifocal electroretinography, Single element stimulation, Stray light effect",
author = "Yoo, {Jun Ho} and Cheolmin Yun and Oh, {Jae Ryung} and Seong-Woo Kim",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.18240/ijo.2019.01.11",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "73--78",
journal = "International Journal of Ophthalmology",
issn = "2222-3959",
publisher = "Press of International Journal of Ophthalmology",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of ring 1 parameters in 37-segment multifocal electroretinography between onset and offset conditions of ring 2 to 4 in normal subjects

AU - Yoo, Jun Ho

AU - Yun, Cheolmin

AU - Oh, Jae Ryung

AU - Kim, Seong-Woo

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - AIM: To investigate whether the response of a central hexagonal element corresponding to the macular area in conventional multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) tests was the same as that of experimental mfERG using single central hexagonal element stimulation. ● METHODS: Prospective, observational study. Thirty healthy subjects were included in this study. mfERG recordings were performed according to two protocols: stimulus with 37 hexagonal elements (protocol 1), and stimulus with a single central element created by deactivating the other 36 hexagonal elements (protocol 2). We compared differences between ring 1 parameters in each protocol. ● RESULTS: In protocol 1, the first positive component (P1) implicit time and P1 amplitude were 37.8±1.8ms and 6.3±2.7 µV. After single element stimulation (protocol 2), double positive waves appeared. The implicit time and amplitude of P1 were 40.7±2.4ms (P<0.001) and 9.1±3.3 μV (P=0.001), respectively. The implicit time and amplitude of the second positive component (P2) were 68.0±4.5ms (P<0.001, compared with P1 in protocol 1) and 12.3±4.7 µV (P<0.001, compared with P1 in protocol 1), respectively. The amplitude of P2 in protocol 2 was about two times higher than that of P1 in protocol 1. ● CONCLUSION: mfERG responses of a central hexagonal element in a single element stimulation protocol are different from those of multiple element stimulation. The positive wave is more enhanced compared to that of the conventional protocol and it elongated into two wavelets.

AB - AIM: To investigate whether the response of a central hexagonal element corresponding to the macular area in conventional multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) tests was the same as that of experimental mfERG using single central hexagonal element stimulation. ● METHODS: Prospective, observational study. Thirty healthy subjects were included in this study. mfERG recordings were performed according to two protocols: stimulus with 37 hexagonal elements (protocol 1), and stimulus with a single central element created by deactivating the other 36 hexagonal elements (protocol 2). We compared differences between ring 1 parameters in each protocol. ● RESULTS: In protocol 1, the first positive component (P1) implicit time and P1 amplitude were 37.8±1.8ms and 6.3±2.7 µV. After single element stimulation (protocol 2), double positive waves appeared. The implicit time and amplitude of P1 were 40.7±2.4ms (P<0.001) and 9.1±3.3 μV (P=0.001), respectively. The implicit time and amplitude of the second positive component (P2) were 68.0±4.5ms (P<0.001, compared with P1 in protocol 1) and 12.3±4.7 µV (P<0.001, compared with P1 in protocol 1), respectively. The amplitude of P2 in protocol 2 was about two times higher than that of P1 in protocol 1. ● CONCLUSION: mfERG responses of a central hexagonal element in a single element stimulation protocol are different from those of multiple element stimulation. The positive wave is more enhanced compared to that of the conventional protocol and it elongated into two wavelets.

KW - Focal electroretinography

KW - Macular function

KW - Multifocal electroretinography

KW - Single element stimulation

KW - Stray light effect

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059507530&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85059507530&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.18240/ijo.2019.01.11

DO - 10.18240/ijo.2019.01.11

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - 73

EP - 78

JO - International Journal of Ophthalmology

JF - International Journal of Ophthalmology

SN - 2222-3959

IS - 1

ER -