Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of repeatability of the multifocal electroretinogram and Humphrey perimeter

  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Functional mapping of the retina by multifocal electroretinographic recordings is now possible. We compared the normal range, repeatability and response topography of this new technique with conventional static Humphrey perimetry to assess its suitability in clinical practice. The multifocal technique was performed on 60 age-matched controls. Measures of repeatability and reproducibility were obtained. Results were then compared with those obtained from a customized perimetry test. In both tests the coefficients of repeatability were found to decrease with eccentricity. The inherent measurement variation between techniques was comparable. Overall system variation indicates that the technique could be a useful tool at the clinical level.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Parks S, Keating D, Williams TH, Evans AL, Elliot AT, Jay JL. Functional imaging of the retina using the multifocal electroretinogram: a control study. Br J Ophthalmol 1996; 80: 831–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sutter EE, Tran D. The field topography of ERG components in man: 1. The photopic luminance response. Vision Res 1992; 32: 433–46.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. British Standards Institution. Precision of test methods: I. Guide for the determination and reproducibility for a standard test method (BS 5497, part 1). London: British Standards Institution, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 2: 307–10.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Katz J, Sommer A. Asymmetry and variation in the normal hill of vision. Arch Ophthalmol 1986; 104: 65–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hass A, Flammer J, Schneider U. Influence of age on the visual fields of normal subjects. Am J Ophthalmol 1986; 101: 109–203.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brenton RS, Phelps CD. The normal visual field on the Humphrey field analyzer. Ophthalmologica 1986; 193: 56–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Panda-Jonas S, Jona JB, Jakobczyk-Zmija M. Retinal photoreceptor density decreases with age. Ophthalmology 1995; 102: 1853–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Birch DG, Fish GE. Focal cone electroretinograms. Ageing and macular disease. Doc Ophthalmol 1988; 69: 211–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bearse MA, Sutter EE, Smith DN, Stamper R. Ganglion cell components of the human multifocal ERG are abnormal in optic nerve atrophy and glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1995; 36: S445.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Parks, S., Keating, D., Evans, A.L. et al. Comparison of repeatability of the multifocal electroretinogram and Humphrey perimeter. Doc Ophthalmol 92, 281–289 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02584082

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02584082

Key words

Navigation