Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.55(11) > 1009843

TOOLS
Min, Lee, and Jin: Result of Visual Evoked Potential, Electroretinography and Electrooculograph in Normal Subjects Using MonPack 3 System
Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2014;55(11):1693-1697.

Published online: 2 September 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2014.55.11.1693

Result of Visual Evoked Potential, Electroretinography and Electrooculograph in Normal Subjects Using MonPack 3 System

Seong Gyu Min, MD, Young Hoon Lee, MD, Sun Young Jin, MD

Department of Ophthalmology, Konyang University College of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea

Address reprint requests to Sun Young Jin, MD, Department of Ophthalmology, Konyang University Hospital, #158 Gwanjeodong-ro, Seo-gu, Daejeon 302-718, Korea, Tel: 82-42-600-8975, Fax: 82-42-600-9251, E-mail: jin-sy@hanmail.net

Received 3 January 2014       Revised 26 April 2014       Accepted 7 October 2014

Copyright © 2014 The Korean Ophthalmological Society

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

We present the results of visual evoked potential (VEP), electroretinography (ERG), and electrooculography (EOG) in normal subjects using the Mon-pack 3 system (Metrovision).

Methods

VEP, ERG, and EOG were obtained in 92 normal eyes. The measurements followed the International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision (ISCEV) standardization protocol. In VEP, the standard electrode was placed on the forehead and the active electrode was attached on the occiput. In ERG, a 20-minute dark adaptation was performed after mydriasis, and an ERG-jet electrode was used. EOG was measured by attaching an electrode to each medial canthal skin. Each latent period and electric potential was measured with average, standard deviation, median, and 95% confidencenterval (95% CI).

Results

The mean P100 latency in pattern VEP was 104.36 ms, and P100 latency in flash VEP was 116.71 ms. For the maximal ERG response, the implicit times of a and b waves were 22.65 ms and 44.58 ms, respectively and the amplitude of a and b waves were 274.09 μv and 489.52 μv, respectively. For the ERG cone response, the implicit time of a and b waves were 18.21 ms and 33.40 ms, respectively, and the amplitude of a and b waves were 35.87 μv and 104.42 μv, respectively. The mean ERG oscillitatory potential was 285.53 μv. The average EOG Arden ratio was 2.54.

Conclusions

VEP, ERG, and EOG results from normal subjects using the Mon-pack 3 system can be applied to the diagnosis of retina and optic nerve disease and basic research.

Keywords: Electrooculography, Electroretinography, Mon-pack 3 system (Metrovision), Normal subjects, Visual evoked potential

References

1. Ganes T. Somatosensory evoked responses and central afferent conduction times in patients with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1980; 43:948–53.
crossref
2. Choi SH, Ohn YH. VER changes in refractive error. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1999; 40:2876–83.
3. Sokol S. Pattern visual evoked potentials: their use in pediatric ophthalmology. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 1980; 20:251–68.
4. DeVoe RC, Ripps H, Vaughan HG Jr. Cortical responses to stimulation of the human fovea. Vision Res. 1968; 8:135–47.
crossref
5. Oken BS, Chiappa KH, Gill E. Normal temporal variability of the P100. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1987; 68:153–6.
crossref
6. Halliday AM, McDonald WI, Mushin J. Visual evoked response in diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Br Med J. 1973; 4:661–4.
crossref
7. Sokol S. Abnormal evoked potential latencies in amblyopia. Br J Ophthalmol. 1983; 67:310–4.
crossref
8. Asselman P, Chadwick DW, Marsden DC. Visual evoked responses in the diagnosis and management of patients suspected of multiple sclerosis. Brain. 1975; 98:261–82.
crossref
9. Kupersmith MJ, Weiss PA, Carr RE. The visual-evoked potential in tobacco-alcohol and nutritional amblyopia. Am J Ophthalmol. 1983; 95:307–14.
crossref
10. Sim JO, Park CK, Moon JI. Clinical ability of high frequency pattern VEP and flicker ERG examination to detect glaucomatous visual field change. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2004; 45:1315–21.
11. Yoo WS, Park YJ, Yoo JM. Pattern VEP in adult amblyopic patients requested from military service. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2010; 51:1392–7.
crossref
12. Chang BL. VEP in normal eyes. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1987; 28:127–30.
13. Kim SM, Kwak HW, Oh YD. Evaluation of clinically applied VEP (visual evoked potential) in ophthalmological and neurological diseases. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1985; 26:1041–5.
14. Shin HH, Park SH, Im MJ. The latency time of visual evoked potential in normal eyes. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1986; 27:205–10.
15. Choi SH, Ohn YH, Shin HH. Normal value of standard electroretinography and change with age and sex (II)-results using Burian-Allen electrode and comparison with results using EFG-jet electrode. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1999; 40:129–40.
16. Arden GB, Barrada A. Analysis of the electro-oculograms of a series of normal subjects: role of the lens in the development of the standing potential. Br J Ophthalmol. 1962; 46:468–82.
crossref
17. Fishman GA, Carrasco C, Fishman M. The electro-oculogram in diffuse (familial) drusen. Arch Ophthalmol. 1976; 94:231–3.
crossref
18. Kolb H. Electro-oculogram findings in patients treated with anti-malarial drugs. Br J Ophthalmol. 1965; 49:573–90.
crossref
19. van Lith GH, Balik J. Variability of the electro-oculogram (EOG). Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1970; 48:1091–6.

Table 1.
Implicit time of visual evoked potential
Response Type of stimulation Implicit time (ms) Median (ms) 95% confidence interval (ms)
N75 Pattern 72.98 ± 10.77 74.40 70.43-75.26
Flash 83.03 ± 17.14 85.30 78.24-86.25
P100 Pattern 104.36 ± 7.07 104.00 102.63-106.02
Flash 116.71 ± 16.72 116.71 112.78-120.64
N135 Pattern 143.63 ± 14.48 143.00 140.08-146.83
Flash 147.68 ± 26.18 153.50 141.04-153.24

Values are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated.

Table 2.
Amplitued of visual evoked potential
Response Type of stimulation Amplitude (μv) Median (μv) 95% confidence interval (μv)
N75 Pattern −1.34 ± 2.50 −1.25 −1.90-0.77
Flash −4.01 ± 4.23 −3.85 −4.96-3.05
P100 Pattern 10.12 ± 3.96 10.25 9.23-11.01
Flash 16.13 ± 14.42 14.35 12.87-19.38
N135 Pattern −11.89 ± 5.81 −11.30 −13.20-10.58
Flash −13.70 ± 10.21 −13.75 −16.00-11.39

Values are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated.

Table 3.
Mean and standard deviation of electroretinogram
Response Parameter Mean Median 95% confidence interval
Rod response Amplitude (μv) 339.25 ± 81.05 336.00 319.33-359.18
b-wave implicit time (ms) 71.30 ± 5.27 70.60 70.51-72.74
Maximal response a-wave amplitude (μv) 274.09 ± 54.55 281.00 260.68-287.50
a-wave implicit time (ms) 22.65 ± 2.13 23.00 22.12-23.17
b-wave amplitude (μv) 489.52 ± 93.42 482.50 466.55-512.48
b-wave implicit time (ms) 44.58 ± 6.22 42.50 43.06-46.11
Cone response a-wave amplitude (μv) 35.87 ± 7.90 36.20 33.96-37.79
a-wave implicit time (ms) 18.21 ± 4.61 17.70 17.10-19.33
b-wave amplitude (μv) 104.42 ± 26.29 103.00 98.06-110.78
b-wave implicit time (ms) 33.40 ± 2.81 33.60 32.72-34.08
30 Hz flicker Amplitude (μv) 64.89 ± 22.04 60.05 59.56-70.23
Implicit time (ms) 32.29 ± 3.52 31.90 31.44-33.15
Ocillitatory potential Sum Ocillitatory potential (μv) 285.83 ± 73.40 284.20 264.84-307.83

Values are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated.

TOOLS
Similar articles