Advertisement

Revealing a retinal facilitatory effect with the multifocal ERG

  • Dylan Vatcher
  • Allison L. Dorfman
  • Youjia Shen
  • Jia Yue You
  • Vincent Sun
  • Ayesha Khan
  • Robert C. Polomeno
  • Pierre LachapelleEmail author
Original Research Article
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

We have previously shown that the amplitude of the mfERG response obtained to a single (large) hexagon is significantly smaller than that obtained when summating all the mfERG responses evoked to an array of 7–61 hexagons covering the same retinal area. The purpose of this study was to confirm our initial findings in normal subjects of different ages and in selected patients.

Methods

Binocular mfERGs (1, 7, 19, 37 and 61 hexagon arrays; Espion V6.0.54 Diagnosys LLC) were recorded from 40 normal subjects (25 aged 18–25, and 15 aged 3–12). Individual mfERG waveforms evoked in response to the multi-hexagon arrays (7, 19, 37 and 61) were summated, and the amplitude of the resulting composite mfERG waveform was compared to that measured in the response evoked to the single (large) hexagon stimulus to yield the amplitude ratio (i.e., 7:1 X100, 19:1X100, etc.).

Results

In normal subjects, the 7:1 ratio was 119.5 ± 9.2%, a value that gradually decreased to reach 109.4 ± 20.6% with the 61:1 ratio and a finding that was similar across all ages.

Conclusion

The present study indicates a significant enhancement in amplitude of the summed mfERG composite waveform evoked to the 7 hexagon stimulus array (and to a lesser extent to the 19, 37 and 61 stimuli) compared to the 1 hexagon array, possibly mediated through the retinal lateral pathway (horizontal or amacrine cells), a claim that awaits confirmation. Preliminary results obtained from patients treated with Plaquenil suggest that this new method of mfERG analysis might probe a feature of macular function different from that investigated with the more usual method of mfERG ring ratio.

Keywords

mfERG Lateral interaction Maturation Retina 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (MOP 126082 to PL), the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre (New Direction in Research Grant to ALD, AK and PL) and the McGill Summer Research Bursary Program (CIHR Health Professional Student Research Award to DV).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Informed consent

All subjects freely consented to participate in this study, and an informed consent was obtained from all participants (or their parents) included in the study.

Human and animal and rights

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors. All procedures performed on our human participants were done so in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Review Board of the Montreal Children’s Hospital and in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. 1.
    Hood DC, Bach M, Brigell M, Keating D, Kondo M, Lyons JS, Marmor MF, McCulloch DL, Palmowski-Wolfe AM (2012) ISCEV standard for clinical multifocal electroretinography (2011 edition). Doc Ophthalmol 124:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hood DC, Greenstein VC, Holopigian K, Bauer R, Firoz B, Liebmann JM, Odel JG, Ritch R (2000) An attempt to detect glaucomatous damage to the inner retina with the multifocal ERG. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:1570–1579Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kolb H, Fernandez E, Nelson R (eds) (1995) Webvision: the organization of the retina and visual system [Internet]. University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City (UT) [cited 2015 Jun 30]. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11530/
  4. 4.
    McCulloch DL, Marmor MF, Brigell MG, Hamilton R, Holder GE, Tzekov R, Bach M (2015) ISCEV standard for full-field clinical electroretinography (2015 update). Doc Ophthalmol 130:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sutter EE (1991) The fast m-transform: a fast computation of cross-correlations with binary m-sequences. SIAM J Comput 20:686–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hood DC et al (2003) The multifocal electroretinogram. J Neuroophthalmol 23:225–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shen Y, Racine J, Little JM, Lachapelle P (2010) Facilitatory interactions evidenced with the multifocal ERG. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 51:1482Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hebert M, Vaegan, Lachapelle P (1999) Reproducibility of ERG responses obtained with the DTL electrode. Vis Res 39:1069–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wassle H, Riemann HJ (1978) The mosaic of nerve cells in the mammalian retina. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 200:441–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fortune B, Johnson CA, Cioffi GA (2001) The topographic relationship between multifocal electroretinographic and behavioral perimetric measures of function in glaucoma. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 78:206–214Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hasegawa S, Takagi M, Usui T et al (2000) Waveform changes of the first-order multifocal electroretinogram in patients with glaucoma. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:1597–1603Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mohidin N, Yap MK, Jacobs RJ (1999) Influence of age on the multifocal electroretinography. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 19:481–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hansen RM, Fulton AB (2005) Development of the cone ERG in infants. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 46(9):3458–3462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hansen RM, Moskowitz A, Fulton AB (2009) Multifocal ERG responses in infants. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 50(1):470–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tzekov RT, Gerth C, Werner JS (2004) Senescence of human multifocal electroretinogram components: a localized approach. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 242(7):549–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fortune B, Johnson CA (2002) Decline of photopic multifocal electroretinogram responses with age is due primarily to preretinal optical factors. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 19:173–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nagatomo A, Nao-i N, Maruiwa F, Arai M, Sawada A (1998) Multifocal electroretinograms in normal subjects. Jpn J Ophthalmol 42:129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dorfman AL, Vatcher D, Sun V, You JY, Beneish R, Khan A, Lachapelle P (2016) Exploring multifocal electroretinography in pediatrics: a story of patients and patience. Doc Ophthalmol 133:9–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lyons JS, Severns M (2009) Using multifocal ERG ring ratios to detect and follow Plaquenil retinal toxicity: a review. Doc Ophthalmol 118:29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of MedicineResearch Institute of the McGill University Health CentreMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of Neurology-NeurosurgeryResearch Institute of the McGill University Health CentreMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations