Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing the impact of non-dilating the eye on full-field electroretinogram and standard flash response

  • Original research article
  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We investigated the possibility of performing electroretinography (ERG) in non-pharmacologically dilated eyes using brighter flash (time-integrated) luminance. Photopic (N = 26; background 25.5 cd·m−2, white LED flashes) and scotopic ERG (N = 23, green LED flashes) luminance response functions were obtained simultaneously in a dilated (DE) and non-dilated eye (NDE). In the NDE, photopic V max b-wave amplitude was reduced by 14% (P < 0.0001), implicit time prolonged (P < 0.0001), and retinal sensitivity (log K) decreased by 0.38 log units (P < 0.0001) with no effect on a-wave. Using a xenon strobe light (N = 6) to increase flash luminance, V max remained lower by about 12% in the NDE (P = 0.02). V max with LED and xenon was achieved at 3.9 ± 1.0 cd·s·m−2 and 3.3 ± 0.81 cd·s·m−2 in the DE and 10.6 ± 1.2 cd·s·m−2 and 12.3 ± 1.90 cd·s·m−2 in the NDE, that is an increase of 0.43 and 0.57 log unit (P < 0.0001), respectively. Increasing background luminance by 0.50 log units (80 cd·m−2, N = 4) resulted in implicit time normalization but not V max amplitude. Rod V max was decreased by 7% in NDE (P < 0.05) and sensitivity reduced by 0.40 log units (P < 0.0001), but our data suggest that the luminance may have not been sufficient to reach V max in all participants in the NDE and that the sensitivity change may have been due to an inadequate inter-stimulus interval. For the photopic ERG, increasing flash luminance is not sufficient to compensate for the smaller pupil size, whereas for the scotopic ERG, more data are needed to establish proper inter-stimulus interval to perform recordings in a non-pharmacologically dilated.

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
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

DE:

Dilated eye

ERG:

Electroretinogram

NDE:

Non-dilated eye

SF:

Standard flash

LRF:

Luminance response function

References

  1. Marmor MF, Holder GE, Seeliger MW, Yamamoto S (2004) Standard for clinical electroretinography (2004). Doc Ophthalmol 108:107–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Marmor MF, Fulton AB, Holder GE, Miyake Y, Brigell M, Bach M (2009) ISCEV Standard for full-field clinical electroretinography (2008). Doc Ophthalmol 118:69–77

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Decraene T, Goossens A (2001) Contact allergy to atropine and other mydriatic agents in eye drops. Contact Dermatitis 45:309–310

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Iijima A, Haida M, Ishikawa N, Ueno A, Minamitani H, Shinohara Y (2003) Re-evaluation of tropicamide in the pupillary response test for Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiol Aging 24:789–796

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kergoat H, Kergoat MJ, Justino L (2001) Age-related changes in the flash electroretinogram and oscillatory potentials in individuals age 75 and older. J Am Geriatr Soc 49:1212–1217

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chew HF, Markowitz SN, Flanagan J, Buys YM (2007) The effect of pupil dilation on driving vision in Canada. Can J Ophthalmol 42:585–591

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lachapelle P (1990) A possible contribution of the optic nerve to the photopic oscillatory. Clin vision sci 5:421–426

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hebert M, Lachapelle P, Dumont M (1995) Reproducibility of electro retino grams recorded with DTL electrodes. Doc Ophthalmol 91:333–342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lachapelle P (1987) Analysis of the photopic electroretinogram recorded before and after dark adaptation. Can J Ophthalmol 22:354–361

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Peachey N, Alexander K, Fishman G, Derlacki D (1989) Properties of the human cone system electroretinogram during light adaptation. Appl Opt 28:1145–1150

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wali N, Leguire LE (1992) The photopic hill: a new phenomenon of the light adapted electroretinogram. Doc Ophthalmol 80:335–345

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rufiange M, Rousseau S, Dembinska O, Lachapelle P (2002) Cone-dominated ERG luminance-response function: the Photopic Hill revisited. Doc Ophthalmol 104:231–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rufiange M, Dassa J, Dembinska O, Koenekoop RK, Little JM, Polomeno RC, Dumont M, Chemtob S, Lachapelle P (2003) The photopic ERG luminance-response function (photopic hill): method of analysis and clinical application. Vision Res 43:1405–1412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fulton AB, Hansen RM (1987) The relationship of retinal sensitivity and rhodopsin in human infants. Vision Res 27:697–704

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dowling JE (1987) The retina. An approachable part of the brain. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  16. Joly S, Dorfman AL, Chemtob S, Moukhles H, Lachapelle P (2006) Structural and functional consequences of bright light exposure on the retina of neonatal rats. Doc Ophthalmol 113:93–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gonzalez P, Parks S, Dolan F, Keating D (2004) The effects of pupil size on the multifocal electroretinogram. Doc Ophthalmol 109:67–72

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Westheimer G (2008) Directional sensitivity of the retina: 75 years of stiles-Crawford effect. Proc Biol Sci 275:2777–2786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Massof RW, Wu L, Finkelstein D, Perry C, Starr SJ, Johnson MA (1984) Properties of electroretinographic intensity-response functions in retinitis pigmentosa. Doc Ophthalmol 57:279–296

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre de Recherche Université Laval Robert-Giffard, 2601 de la Canardière, Québec, QC, G1 J 2G3, Canada

    A-M. Gagné, J. Lavoie, M-P. Lavoie, A. Sasseville, M-C. Charron & M. Hébert

Authors
  1. A-M. Gagné
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Lavoie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M-P. Lavoie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Sasseville
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M-C. Charron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Hébert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Hébert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gagné, AM., Lavoie, J., Lavoie, MP. et al. Assessing the impact of non-dilating the eye on full-field electroretinogram and standard flash response. Doc Ophthalmol 121, 167–175 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-010-9242-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-010-9242-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation