Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of pattern VEP results acquired using CRT and TFT stimulators in the clinical practice

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There are several electrophysiological systems available commercially. Usually, control groups are required to compare their results, due to the differences between display types. Our aim was to examine the differences between CRT and LCD/TFT stimulators used in pattern VEP responses performed according to the ISCEV standards. We also aimed to check different contrast values toward thresholds. In order to obtain more precise results, we intended to measure the intensity and temporal response characteristics of the monitors with photometric methods. To record VEP signals, a Roland RetiPort electrophysiological system was used. The pattern VEP tests were carried out according to ISCEV protocols on a CRT and a TFT monitor consecutively. Achromatic checkerboard pattern was used at three different contrast levels (maximal, 75, 25%) using 1° and 15′ check sizes. Both CRT and TFT displays were luminance and contrast matched, according to the gamma functions based on measurements at several DAC values. Monitor-specific luminance parameters were measured by means of spectroradiometric instruments. Temporal differences between the displays’ electronic and radiometric signals were measured with a device specifically built for the purpose. We tested six healthy control subjects with visual acuity of at least 20/20. The tests were performed on each subject three times on different days. We found significant temporal differences between the CRT and the LCD monitors at all contrast levels and spatial frequencies. In average, the latency times were 9.0 ms (±3.3 ms) longer with the TFT stimulator. This value is in accordance with the average of the measured TFT input–output temporal difference values (10.1 ± 2.2 ms). According to our findings, measuring the temporal parameters of the TFT monitor with an adequately calibrated measurement setup and correcting the VEP data with the resulting values, the VEP signals obtained with different display types can be transformed to be comparable.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Odom JV, Bach M, Brigell M, Holder GE, McCulloch DL, Tormene AP, Vaegan (2010) ISCEV standard for clinical visual evoked potentials (2009 update). Doc Ophthalmol 120:111–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Husain AM, Hayes S, Young M, Shah D (2009) Visual evoked potentials with CRT and LCD monitors. Neurology 72:162–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Karanjia R, Brunet DG, ten Hove MW (2009) Optimization of visual evoked potential (VEP) recording systems. Can J Neurol Sci 36:89–92

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Varsanyi B, Nagy BV, Heller D, Farkas A (2009) Comparison of VEP results performed on CRT and LCD displays and evaluation of photometric calibration of the devices. Doc Ophthalmol 119(Suppl.1):3–16

    Google Scholar 

  5. Michelson A (1927) Studies in optics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

  6. Brainard DH, Pelli DG, Robson T (2002) Display characterization. In the Encylopedia of imaging science and technology. Wiley, Oxford, pp 172–188

  7. den Boer W (2005) Active matrix liquid crystal displays: fundamentals and applications. Newnes

  8. Artamonov O (2007) Contemporary LCD monitor parameters: objective and subjective analysis (www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/lcd-parameters.html)

  9. Heckenlively JR, Arden GB (2006) Principles and practice of clinical electrophysiology of vision. The MIT Press, Cambidge

    Google Scholar 

  10. Elze T (2010) Achieving precise display timing in visual neuroscience experiments. J Neurosci Methods 191:171–179

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all participating subjects and Ildiko Weiszer for their helpful assistance. Author BVN was supported by FAPESP fellowship (09/54292-7).

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Balázs Varsányi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nagy, B.V., Gémesi, S., Heller, D. et al. Comparison of pattern VEP results acquired using CRT and TFT stimulators in the clinical practice. Doc Ophthalmol 122, 157–162 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-011-9270-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-011-9270-5

Keywords

Navigation