Skip to main content
Log in

Submicrovolt full-field cone electroretinograms: artifacts and reproducibility

  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The clinical utility of submicrovolt full-field 30-Hz (cone) electroretinograms was assessed by quantifying their contamination by electrical and photoelectric artifacts from xenon-flash stimulators and their test-retest variation in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Artifacts obtained in saline with four commonly used electrodes varied with electrode type and consisted of an early, brief electrical component and a superimposed, extended photoelectric component. Techniques for minimizing these artifacts are described. Electroretinogram recordings from patients with advanced retinitis pigmentosa or congenital rod monochromatism indicate that these artifacts can be virtually eliminated with bipolar lenses. To assess test-retest variation, narrow-band-filtered responses were obtained twice during 6 weeks from patients with amplitudes less than 1 μV; threshold criteria for signficant (p<0.05) change in amplitude with this technique were approximately 0.25 log unit for each of two different systems.

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. Henkes HE, van der Tweel LH, van der Gon JJD. Selective amplification of the electroretinogram. Ophthalmologica 1956; 132: 140–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Berson EL, Sandberg MA, Rosner B, Birch DG, Hanson AH. Natural course of retinitis pigmentosa over a three year interval. Am J Ophthalmol 1985; 99: 240–51.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Andreasson SOL, Sandberg MA, Berson EL. Narrow-band filtering for monitoring low-amplitude cone electroretinograms in retinitis pigmentosa. Am J Ophthalmol 1988; 105: 500–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Van der Tweel LH, Estevez O. Analytical techniques. In: Heckenlively JR, Arden GB, eds. Principles and practice of clinical electrophysiology of vision. St. Louis: CV Mosby, 1991: 231–253.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Berson EL, Rosner B, Sandberg MA, Hayes KC, Nicholson BW, Weigel-DiFranco, Willett W. A randomized trial of vitamin A and vitamin E supplementation for retinitis pigmentosa. Arch Ophthalmol 1993; 111: 761–72.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Birch DG, Anderson JL. Longitudinal measures in children receiving ENCAD for hereditary retinal degeneration. Doc Ophthalmol 1991; 77: 185–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dagnelie G, Massof RW. Sub-microvolt electroretinograms: negotiating the pitfalls of photoelectricity and noise. In: Vision science and its applications 1994. Technical Digest Series, Vol 2. Washington, DC: Optical Society of America, 1994: 354–7.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Marmor MF, Arden GB, Nilsson SEG, Zrenner E. Standard for clinical electroretinography. Arch Ophthalmol 1989; 107: 816–9.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gouras P, Carr RE. Electrophysiological studies in early retinitis pigmentosa. Arch Ophthalmol 1964; 72: 104–10.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Berson EL, Gouras P, Hoff M. Temporal aspects of the electroretinogram. Arch Ophthalmol 1969; 81: 207–14.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Birch DG, Anderson JL. Standardized full-field electroretinography: normal values and their variation with age. Arch Ophthalmol 1992; 110: 1571–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Birch, D.G., Sandberg, M.A. Submicrovolt full-field cone electroretinograms: artifacts and reproducibility. Doc Ophthalmol 92, 269–280 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02584081

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02584081

Key words

Navigation