Scholarlink

Purpose <p>To evaluate the agreement between Snellen visual acuity (VA) and sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP) VA in individuals with normal vision and assess sVEP variability and reproducibility across multiple test sessions.</p> Methods <p>Thirty-nine healthy participants (78 eyes) underwent Snellen and sVEP VA testing. Ten participants (20 eyes) also underwent sVEP testing twice daily (morning and afternoon) on three separate days (120 total recordings).</p> <p>and Snellen VA measurements showed strong agreement, with a mean absolute difference of 0.03 LogMAR (less than one Snellen line). Forty of 78 eyes had differences within one Snellen line, while the largest discrepancy reached four lines. Statistical analysis (P = 0.201) indicated no significant difference between the two methods. sVEP reproducibility was also high, with no significant variation between morning and afternoon recordings (P = 0.67), confirming its stability as a clinical tool.</p> Conclusion <p>sVEP provides objective and reproducible VA measurements comparable to Snellen VA, suggesting its potential as an alternative clinical assessment tool, particularly for patients with communication challenges, cognitive impairments, or suspected malingering vision loss.</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

Beyond the snellen chart: exploring the clinical potential of sweep visual evoked potentials for visual acuity measurement

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月6日

查看全文
  • Asma Hermas,
  • Michael Dollin,
  • Rustum Karanjia,
  • Ange-Lynca Kantungane,
  • Hong-An Nguyen,
  • Catherine Tsilfidis,
  • Stuart Coupland

摘要

Purpose

To evaluate the agreement between Snellen visual acuity (VA) and sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP) VA in individuals with normal vision and assess sVEP variability and reproducibility across multiple test sessions.

Methods

Thirty-nine healthy participants (78 eyes) underwent Snellen and sVEP VA testing. Ten participants (20 eyes) also underwent sVEP testing twice daily (morning and afternoon) on three separate days (120 total recordings).

and Snellen VA measurements showed strong agreement, with a mean absolute difference of 0.03 LogMAR (less than one Snellen line). Forty of 78 eyes had differences within one Snellen line, while the largest discrepancy reached four lines. Statistical analysis (P = 0.201) indicated no significant difference between the two methods. sVEP reproducibility was also high, with no significant variation between morning and afternoon recordings (P = 0.67), confirming its stability as a clinical tool.

Conclusion

sVEP provides objective and reproducible VA measurements comparable to Snellen VA, suggesting its potential as an alternative clinical assessment tool, particularly for patients with communication challenges, cognitive impairments, or suspected malingering vision loss.