Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Quanz et al. (Sci Rep 14:16797, 2024) reported that participants with nystagmus had higher objective visual evoked potential visual acuity estimates (VA<sub>VEP</sub>) by 0.12 logMAR relative compared to standard psychophysical VA (VA<sub>Psych_Stat</sub>). The cause of this modest, but significant VA<sub>VEP</sub> overestimation remains unclear. Here we investigated its association with the pattern-pulse stimulation mode applied for steady state VEP recording for VA<sub>VEP</sub> estimation. Specifically, we tested whether psychophysical visual acuity to pulsed optotypes (VA<sub>Psych_Pulsed</sub>) also exceeds standard optotype VA<sub>Psych_Stat</sub>.</p> Methods <p>Twelve participants with nystagmus were included in this analysis. VA<sub>VEP</sub> was determined for pattern-pulse steady-state VEP stimulation (Quanz et al. in Sci Rep 14:16797, 2024) using EP2000, psychophysical VA was determined to stationary (VA<sub>Psych_Stat</sub>) and to pulsed (VA<sub>Psych_Pulsed</sub>) Landolt-C optotypes employing a modified version of the Freiburg Vision Test (FrACT). Pulsed stimulus timing was identical for VEP and VA (40&#xa0;ms on and 93&#xa0;ms off, i.e. at 7.5&#xa0;Hz). In a separate measurement, fixation stability within the central 4° was determined using microperimetry (Nidek MP‐1), and the eye with the stronger fixation instability was selected for the analysis (12 eyes). LogMAR differences were assessed with a paired t-test and the correlation of fixation stability and VA differences (ΔVA<sub>Psych</sub> = VA<sub>Psych_Pulsed</sub> – VA<sub>Psych_Stat</sub>) was tested.</p> Results <p>VA<sub>Psych_Stat</sub> (0.43 ± 0.06 logMAR) and VA<sub>Psych_Pulsed</sub> (0.45 ± 0.06 logMAR, P = 0.15)&#xa0;did not differ from each other, but from VA<sub>VEP</sub> (0.26 ± 0.08 logMAR, <i>P</i> = 0.02 and <i>P</i> = 0.01, respectively). There was no correlation of ΔVA<sub>Psych</sub> with fixation instability (r<sup>2</sup> = 0.002, <i>P</i> = 0.89).</p> Conclusion <p>Pulsed stimulation appears not to be the reason for the VA<sub>VEP</sub> overestimation&#xa0;in nystagmus. Further research should address whether differences in the spatial stimulus properties might be of relevance, as VA<sub>Psych</sub> is tested with optotypes, VA<sub>VEP</sub> with extended patterns.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Impact of pulsed stimulation on objective and subjective visual acuity measurements in nystagmus

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月4日

查看全文
  • Elisabeth V. Quanz,
  • Khaldoon O. Al-Nosairy,
  • Francie H. Stolle,
  • Juliane Kuske,
  • Sven P. Heinrich,
  • Michael Bach,
  • Michael B. Hoffmann

摘要

Purpose

Quanz et al. (Sci Rep 14:16797, 2024) reported that participants with nystagmus had higher objective visual evoked potential visual acuity estimates (VAVEP) by 0.12 logMAR relative compared to standard psychophysical VA (VAPsych_Stat). The cause of this modest, but significant VAVEP overestimation remains unclear. Here we investigated its association with the pattern-pulse stimulation mode applied for steady state VEP recording for VAVEP estimation. Specifically, we tested whether psychophysical visual acuity to pulsed optotypes (VAPsych_Pulsed) also exceeds standard optotype VAPsych_Stat.

Methods

Twelve participants with nystagmus were included in this analysis. VAVEP was determined for pattern-pulse steady-state VEP stimulation (Quanz et al. in Sci Rep 14:16797, 2024) using EP2000, psychophysical VA was determined to stationary (VAPsych_Stat) and to pulsed (VAPsych_Pulsed) Landolt-C optotypes employing a modified version of the Freiburg Vision Test (FrACT). Pulsed stimulus timing was identical for VEP and VA (40 ms on and 93 ms off, i.e. at 7.5 Hz). In a separate measurement, fixation stability within the central 4° was determined using microperimetry (Nidek MP‐1), and the eye with the stronger fixation instability was selected for the analysis (12 eyes). LogMAR differences were assessed with a paired t-test and the correlation of fixation stability and VA differences (ΔVAPsych = VAPsych_Pulsed – VAPsych_Stat) was tested.

Results

VAPsych_Stat (0.43 ± 0.06 logMAR) and VAPsych_Pulsed (0.45 ± 0.06 logMAR, P = 0.15) did not differ from each other, but from VAVEP (0.26 ± 0.08 logMAR, P = 0.02 and P = 0.01, respectively). There was no correlation of ΔVAPsych with fixation instability (r2 = 0.002, P = 0.89).

Conclusion

Pulsed stimulation appears not to be the reason for the VAVEP overestimation in nystagmus. Further research should address whether differences in the spatial stimulus properties might be of relevance, as VAPsych is tested with optotypes, VAVEP with extended patterns.