Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The photopic negative response of the Light-adapted 3.0 ERG in clinical settings

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To analyze the effects of different methods of measurement on the photopic negative response (PhNR), recorded as part of a standard ISCEV Photopic 3.0 ERG responses from patients with a variety of clinical diagnoses.

Methods

ERGs were recorded from both eyes of 97 patients (187 eyes) as part of a standard clinical assessment. The average age was 56.4 ± 15.7 years, the gender balance was 35 M, 62F, and only recordable responses of acceptable quality were included. PhNR was measured at an identifiable trough before (PhNR1) and after the i-wave (PhNR2), and the amplitudes and peak times were compared with a-, b- and i-wave corresponding parameters. PhNR components were measured: from baseline and from b-wave peak. Correlation between PhNR troughs and with ERG parameters were tested for right eyes. The possibility to predict and substitute PhNR2 amplitude from PhNR1 amplitude was also tested.

Results

PhNR1 was recordable in 97.3% of eyes and PhNR2 in 85.6%. An identifiable PhNR2 peak was found to occur before 65 ms at ~ 50% of the records, while in ~ 38% of the cases was within 65–75 ms in ~ 12%—after 75 ms. The correlation between the PhNR1 and PhNR2 peaks was quite strong (with coefficients 0.81–0.98, depending on method of measurement, and slopes close to 1). The average difference between predicted and measured PhNR2 was reasonably small in absolute (< 2 µV) and relative (< 2%) terms. The correlations between PhNR amplitudes and other ERG component amplitudes showed different ranges of correlation coefficients depending on the method of measurement: for the a-wave amplitudes the range of coefficients was 0.48–0.73, while for the b-wave amplitudes it was 0.30–0.95 and 0.39–0.65 for i-wave.

Conclusion

The strong correlation between the two PhNR troughs could allow using PhNR1 when PhNR2 is poorly defined due to artifacts. Different methods of PhNR measurement lead to different correlations with other ERG parameters, and this needs to be considered when analyzing and comparing PhNR data between studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The H35 is broadly defined category which includes nine distinct subcategories (n = 38). The distribution of subcategories and the number of patients within each subcategory were as follows: H35/H53.0 (n = 4); H35.1 (n = 1), H35.3 (n = 13), H35.4 (n = 3), H35.5 (n = 13), H35.8 (n = 3). The full list of all subcategories can be found in [45] and other sources.

  2. The categories as per ICD-10 classification are as follows: 1) H30 or H31; 2) H35 (or 362); 3) H40; 4) H53 (or 368); 5) H40; 6) H47; 7) other (includes G11.8, H44, Z79 and D31).

References

  1. Marmor MF, Arden GB, Nilsson SEG, Zrenner E (1989) Standard for clinical electroretinography. International Standardization Committee. Arch Ophthalmol 107(6):816–819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. McCulloch DL et al (2015) ISCEV standard for full-field clinical electroretinography (2015 update). Doc Ophthalmol 130(1):1–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sieving PA, Murayama K, Naarendorp F (1994) Push-pull model of the primate photopic electroretinogram: a role for hyperpolarizing neurons in shaping the b-wave. Vis Neurosci 11(3):519–532

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stockton RA, Slaughter MM (1989) B-wave of the electroretinogram: a reflection of ON bipolar cell activity. J Gen Physiol 93(1):101–122

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Frishman L et al (2018) ISCEV extended protocol for the photopic negative response (PhNR) of the full-field electroretinogram. Doc Ophthalmol 136(3):207–211

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Nagata M (1963) Studies on the photopic ERG of the human retina. Jpn J Ophthalmol 7:96–124

    Google Scholar 

  7. Seiple W, Holopigian K (1993) The ‘OFF’ response of the human electroretinogram does not contribute to the brief flash ‘b-wave’. Vis Neurosci 11:667–673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rousseau S, McKerral M, Lachapelle P (1996) The i-wave: bridging flash and pattern electroretinography. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl 46:165–171

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rufiange M et al (2002) Cone-dominated ERG luminance-response function: the Photopic Hill revisited. Doc Ophthalmol 104(3):231–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lachapelle P et al (1998) Evidence supportive of a functional discrimination between photopic oscillatory potentials as revealed with cone and rod mediated retinopathies. Doc Ophthalmol 95(1):35–54

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rosolen SG et al (2004) Comparing the photopic ERG i-wave in different species. Vet Ophthalmol 7(3):189–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rangaswamy NV et al (2004) Photopic ERGs in patients with optic neuropathies: comparison with primate ERGs after pharmacologic blockade of inner retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45(10):3827–3837

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Viswanathan S et al (1999) The photopic negative response of the macaque electroretinogram: reduction by experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 40(6):1124–1136

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Colotto A et al (2000) Photopic negative response of the human ERG: losses associated with glaucomatous damage. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41(8):2205–2211

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Viswanathan S et al (2001) The photopic negative response of the flash electroretinogram in primary open angle glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42(2):514–522

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wakili N et al (2008) The photopic negative response of the blue-on-yellow flash-electroretinogram in glaucomas and normal subjects. Doc Ophthalmol 117(2):147–154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Machida S et al (2008) Correlation between photopic negative response and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness and optic disc topography in glaucomatous eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49(5):2201–2207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sustar M, Cvenkel B, Brecelj J (2009) The effect of broadband and monochromatic stimuli on the photopic negative response of the electroretinogram in normal subjects and in open-angle glaucoma patients. Doc Ophthalmol 118(3):167–177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. North RV et al (2010) Electrophysiological evidence of early functional damage in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 51(2):1216–1222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim HD, Park JY, Ohn YH (2010) Clinical applications of photopic negative response (PhNR) for the treatment of glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy. Korean J Ophthalmol 24(2):89–95

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Kremers J et al (2012) Spectral characteristics of the PhNR in the full-field flash electroretinogram of normals and glaucoma patients. Doc Ophthalmol 124(2):79–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Huang L et al (2012) Clinical application of photopic negative response of the flash electroretinogram in primary open-angle Glaucoma. Eye Sci 27(3):113–118

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Preiser D et al (2013) Photopic negative response versus pattern electroretinogram in early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54(2):1182–1191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Niyadurupola N et al (2013) Intraocular pressure lowering is associated with an increase in the photopic negative response (PhNR) amplitude in glaucoma and ocular hypertensive eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54(3):1913–1919

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kirkiewicz M, Lubinski W, Penkala K (2016) Photopic negative response of full-field electroretinography in patients with different stages of glaucomatous optic neuropathy. Doc Ophthalmol 132(1):57–65

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Cvenkel B, Sustar M, Perovsek D (2017) Ganglion cell loss in early glaucoma, as assessed by photopic negative response, pattern electroretinogram, and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Doc Ophthalmol 135(1):17–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kizawa J et al (2006) Changes of oscillatory potentials and photopic negative response in patients with early diabetic retinopathy. Jpn J Ophthalmol 50(4):367–373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Chen H et al (2008) The photopic negative response of flash ERG in nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. Doc Ophthalmol 117(2):129–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. McFarlane M et al (2012) Blue flash ERG PhNR changes associated with poor long-term glycemic control in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53(2):741–748

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gotoh Y, Machida S, Tazawa Y (2004) Selective loss of the photopic negative response in patients with optic nerve atrophy. Arch Ophthalmol 122(3):341–346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Chen H et al (2006) The photopic negative response of the flash electroretinogram in retinal vein occlusion. Doc Ophthalmol 113(1):53–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Moon CH et al (2013) Visual prognostic value of photopic negative response and optical coherence tomography in central retinal vein occlusion after anti-VEGF treatment. Doc Ophthalmol 126(3):211–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gardasevic Topcic I et al (2014) Morphological and electrophysiological outcome in prospective intravitreal bevacizumab treatment of macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion. Doc Ophthalmol 129(1):27–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Abed E et al (2015) Functional loss of the inner retina in childhood optic gliomas detected by photopic negative response. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 56(4):2469–2474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Falsini B et al (2016) Nerve growth factor improves visual loss in childhood optic gliomas: a randomized, double-blind, phase II clinical trial. Brain 139(Pt 2):404–414

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Moss HE, Park JC, McAnany JJ (2015) The photopic negative response in idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 56(6):3709–3714

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Park JC, Moss HE, McAnany JJ (2018) Electroretinography in idiopathic intracranial hypertension: comparison of the pattern ERG and the photopic negative response. Doc Ophthalmol 136(1):45–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang J et al (2012) The photopic negative response of the flash electroretinogram in multiple sclerosis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53(3):1315–1323

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Johnson MA, Massof RW (1982) The photomyoclonic reflex: an artefact in the clinical electroretinogram. Br J Ophthalmol 66(6):368–378

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Thompson DA et al (2011) Altered electroretinograms in patients with KCNJ10 mutations and EAST syndrome. J Physiol 589(Pt 7):1681–1689

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Mortlock KE et al (2010) Inter-subject, inter-ocular and inter-session repeatability of the photopic negative response of the electroretinogram recorded using DTL and skin electrodes. Doc Ophthalmol 121(2):123–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Binns AM, Mortlock KE, North RV (2011) The relationship between stimulus intensity and response amplitude for the photopic negative response of the flash electroretinogram. Doc Ophthalmol 122(1):39–52

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Tang J et al (2014) The test–retest reliability of the photopic negative response (PhNR). Transl Vis Sci Technol 3(6):1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Abed E et al (2018) Early impairment of the full-field photopic negative response in patients with Stargardt disease and pathogenic variants of the ABCA4 gene. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 46(5):519–530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Reference, I.-.-C.P.M.C. ICD10Data. 2018 [cited 2018 9/22/2018]; 2018 ICD-10-CM/PCS Medical Coding Reference]. Available from: https://www.icd10data.com/

  46. Gowrisankaran S et al (2011) Structural and functional measures of inner retinal integrity following visual acuity improvement in a patient with hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy type VI. Ophthalmic Genet 32(3):188–192

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Moon CH et al (2011) The time course of visual field recovery and changes of retinal ganglion cells after optic chiasmal decompression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52(11):7966–7973

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Wu Z et al (2016) Measuring the photopic negative response: viability of skin electrodes and variability across disease severities in glaucoma. Transl Vis Sci Technol 5(2):13

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Miyata K et al (2007) Reduction of oscillatory potentials and photopic negative response in patients with autosomal dominant optic atrophy with OPA1 mutations. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48(2):820–824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Bhatti T et al (2017) Relative genetic and environmental contributions to variations in human retinal electrical responses quantified in a twin study. Ophthalmology 124(8):1175–1185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Gonzalo Ortiz and David Drucker have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA

    Gonzalo Ortiz, David Drucker, Connor Hyde, Joseph Staffetti & Radouil Tzekov

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany

    Jan Kremers

  3. Department of Medical Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

    Radouil Tzekov

  4. James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital, Tampa, FL, USA

    Radouil Tzekov

  5. The Roskamp Institute, Sarasota, FL, USA

    Radouil Tzekov

Authors
  1. Gonzalo Ortiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Drucker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Connor Hyde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joseph Staffetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jan Kremers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Radouil Tzekov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Radouil Tzekov.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest related to this work.

Statement of human rights

The study followed the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by a University of South Florida institutional review board.

Statement on the welfare of animals

No animals were involved in this research.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The research protocol was approved by the local Institutional Review Board (protocol # Pro00026623).

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 525 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ortiz, G., Drucker, D., Hyde, C. et al. The photopic negative response of the Light-adapted 3.0 ERG in clinical settings. Doc Ophthalmol 140, 115–128 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-019-09723-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-019-09723-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation