Documenta Ophthalmologica

, 118:121 | Cite as

Can we do without mydriasis in multifocal ERG recordings?

Original Research Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine whether mfERG recordings with natural pupils approximate recordings obtained in mydriasis if the stimulus luminance is adjusted. If so, a bright monitor could obviate pupil dilation, rendering clinical management considerably easier. In 11 eyes of six subjects, we took four mfERG recordings with a resolution of 61 scaled hexagons per eye, two with natural pupils and two in mydriasis with a luminance of 150 cd/m2 and 500 cd/m2, respectively. Conditions will be abbreviated as “LoNat, HiNat, LoDil, and HiDil,” where Lo/Hi stands for low vs. high luminance and Nat/Dil stands for natural vs. dilated pupils. Response densities and peak times were averaged for the central seven and the remaining 54 hexagons. An ANOVA found highly significant effects for both amplitude and peak time between the four recording conditions (P always <0.001). However, for the two “middle” conditions, HiNat and LoDil, amplitudes and peak times did not differ markedly. Retinal illuminances of the conditions LoNat and HiNat each differed from the conditions LoDil and HiDil, respectively, by a factor of 5.4. Amplitudes increased and peak times decreased in the order of conditions LoNat, HiNat, LoDil, HiDil. When data were corrected for the Stiles–Crawford effect, there was an inversion of effective retinal illuminances of the recordings HiNat and LoDil. The mfERG guidelines correspond to the condition LoDil; for all practical purposes, the amplitudes and peak times are the same when the HiNat condition is used. Thus, when clinical constraints render pupil dilation undesirable, the mfERG can be recorded with natural pupils when monitor luminance is increased by five times (if available).

Keywords

Multifocal electroretinogram mfERG Pupil Stiles–Crawford effect Retinal illuminance Effective retinal illuminance Troland 

References

  1. 1.
    Applegate RA, Lakshminarayanan V (1993) Parametric representation of Stiles–Crawford functions: normal variation of peak location and directionality. J Opt Soc Am A 10:1611–1623PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barbur JL, Harlow AJ, Sahraie A (1992) Pupillary responses to stimulus structure, colour and movement. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 12:137–141. doi:10.1111/j.1475-1313.1992.tb00276.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gonzalez P, Parks S, Dolan F, Keating D (2004) The effects of pupil size on the multifocal electroretinogram. Doc Ophthalmol 109:67–72. doi:10.1007/s10633-004-1545-7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hoffmann ML, Zrenner E, Langhof HJ (1978) The effect of the pupil as aperture and field stop on the various components of the human electroretinogram (author’s transl). Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol 206:237–245. doi:10.1007/BF02387335 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hood DC, Bach M, Brigell M, Keating D, Kondo M, Lyons JS et al (2007) ISCEV guidelines for clinical multifocal electroretinography (2007 edition). Doc Ophthalmol 116:1–11Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Murdoch IE, Morris SS, Cousens SN (1998) People and eyes: statistical approaches in ophthalmology. Br J Ophthalmol 82:971–973PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Palmowski AM, Berninger T, Allgayer R, Andrielis H, Heinemann-Vernaleken B, Rudolph G (1999) Effects of refractive blur on the multifocal electroretinogram. Doc Ophthalmol 99:41–54. doi:10.1023/A:1002432113628 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schimitzek T, Bach M (2006) The influence of luminance on the multifocal ERG. Doc Ophthalmol 113:187–192. doi:10.1007/s10633-006-9028-7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stiles WE (1937) The luminous sensitivity of monochromatic rays entering the eye pupil at different points and a new colour effect. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 123:90–118Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stiles WS, Crawford BH (1933) The luminous efficiency of rays entering the eye pupil at different points. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 112:428–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sutter EE (1997) Rapid derivation of the Stiles–Crawford function using electrophysiological responses. OSA Technical Digest Series, vol. 1. pp 1258–1261Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sutter EE, Tran D (1992) The field topography of ERG components in man—I. The photopic luminance response. Vision Res 32:433–446. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(92)90235-B PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Walraven PL (1996) Directional sensitivity of the cone systems in normals and anomalous color vision. In: Lakshminarayanan V (ed) Basis and clinical applications of vision science. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 73–76Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walraven PL, Bouman MA (1960) Relation between directional sensitivity and spectral response curves in human cone vision. J Opt Soc Am 50:780–784PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    World Medical Association (2000) Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 284:3043–3045. doi:10.1001/jama.284.23.3043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wyszecki G, Stiles WS (1982) Color science: concepts and methods, quantitative data and formulae. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yoshii M, Yanashima K, Wakaguri T, Sakemi F, Kikuchi Y, Suzuki S et al (2000) A basic investigation of multifocal electroretinogram: reproducibility and effect of luminance. Jpn J Ophthalmol 44:122–127. doi:10.1016/S0021-5155(99)00189-6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sektion Funktionelle SehforschungUniversitäts-AugenklinikFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations