Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Receiver-operating characteristic analysis of multifocal VEPs to diagnose and quantify glaucomatous functional damage

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

Abstract

To test whether multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) recording using two perpendicularly placed channels, as previously reported, to measure the degree of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) distribution overlap between a signal window and a noise window would efficiently detect and quantify glaucomatous damage. Humphrey visual field (HVF) and mfVEP were recorded from 56 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma and mean deviation less than −15 dB and 62 age-matched ophthalmologically normal individuals. Areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (SNR-AUC) were calculated based on the proportion of mfVEP responses that exceeded a specific SNR criterion for both windows. Abnormal sectors with an SNR deviated from the previously established norm with P < 5% and 1% were counted. Diagnostic accuracy of the SNR-AUC was similar to that of the average total deviation (TD) of the HVF. The hemifield agreement to detect a defect in mfVEP and HVF was 77.1–87.3%, which was similar to previous reports using multiple channels. Correlation coefficients between SNR-AUC and average TD (0.74 in the upper hemifield and 0.65 in the lower) were significantly higher than those between the sums of abnormal locations on the mfVEP and HVF probability plots (0.27 and 0.33, respectively). Two perpendicular channels can detect and quantify functional damage due to glaucoma. The SNR-AUC may be used as a global index to quantify diffuse glaucomatous functional loss.

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. Baseler HA, Sutter EE, Klein SA, Carney T (1994) The topography of visual evoked response properties across the visual field. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 90:65–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Klistorner AI, Graham SL, Grigg JR, Billson FA (1998) Multifocal topographic visual evoked potential: improving objective detection of local visual field defects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 39:937–950

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Klistorner A, Graham SL (2000) Objective perimetry in glaucoma. Ophthalmology 107:2283–2299

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hood DC, Greenstein VC (2003) Multifocal VEP and ganglion cell damage: applications and limitations for the study of glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res 22:201–251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhang X, Hood DC, Chen CS, Hong JE (2002) A signal-to-noise analysis of multifocal VEP responses: an objective definition for poor records. Doc Ophthalmol 104:287–302

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hood DC, Zhang X, Winn BJ (2003) Detecting glaucomatous damage with multifocal visual evoked potentials: How can a monocular test work? J Glaucoma 12:3–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hood DC, Zhang X, Greenstein VC, Kangovi S, Odel JG, Liebmann JM, Ritch R (2000) An interocular comparison of the multifocal VEP: a possible technique for detecting local damage to the optic nerve. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:1580–1587

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Goldberg I, Graham SL, Klistorner AI (2002) Multifocal objective perimetry in the detection of glaucomatous field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 133:29–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bjerre A, Grigg JR, Parry NR, Hensen DB (2004) Test-retest variability of multifocal visual evoked potential and SITA standard perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:4035–4040

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hood DC, Thienprasiddhi P, Greenstein VC, Winn BJ, Ohri N, Liebmann JM, Ritch R (2004) Detecting early to mild glaucomatous damage: a comparison of the multifocal VEP and automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:492–498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Graham SL, Klistorner A, Goldberg I (2005) Clinical application of objective perimetry using multifocal visual evoked potentials in glaucoma practice. Arch Ophthalmol 123:729–739

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Balachandran C, Graham SL, Klistorner A, Goldberg I (2006) Comparison of objective diagnostic tests in glaucoma. Heidelberg retinal tomography and multifocal visual evoked potentials. J Glaucoma 15:110–116

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Fortune B, Demirel S, Zhang X, Hood DC, Patterson E, Jamil A, Mansberger SL, Cioffi GA, Johnson CA (2007) Comparing multifocal VEP and standard automated perimetry in high-risk ocular hypertension and early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48:1173–1180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Meigen T, Krämer M (2007) Optimizing electrode positions and analysis strategies for multifocal VEP recordings by ROC analysis. Vis Res 47:1445–1454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ishikawa K, Nagai T, Yamada Y, Negi A, Nakamura M (2011) Optimal conditions for multifocal VEP recording for normal Japanese population established by receiver operating characteristic analysis. Doc Ophthalmol 122:29–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kanamori A, Naka M, Nagai-Kusuhara A, Yamada Y, Nakamura M, Negi A (2008) Regional relationship between retinal nerve fiber layer thickness and corresponding visual field sensitivity in glaucomatous eyes. Arch Ophthalmol 126:1500–1506

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Anderson D, Pattela V (1992) Automated static perimetry, 2nd edn. St Louis, Missouri, pp 143–153

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hood DC, Greenstein VC, Odel JG, Zhang X, Ritch R, Liebmann JM, Hong JE, Chen CS, Thienprasiddhi P (2002) Visual field defects and multifocal visual evoked potentials. Evidence of a linear relationship. Arch Ophthalmol 120:1672–1681

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hood DC, Kardon RH (2007) A framework for comparing structural and functional measures of glaucomatous damage. Prog Retin Eye Res 26:688–710

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44:837–845

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic curve. Radiology 143:29–36

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Vida S (1993) A computer program for non-parametric receiver operating characteristic analysis. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 40:95–101

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Leeprechanon N, Giangiacomo A, Fontana H, Hoffman D, Caprioli J (2007) Frequency-doubling perimetry: comparison with standard automated perimetry to detect glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 143:263–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported in part by Grants-in-Aid 22390324 (A.N., Y.Y., M.N.) and 20592043 (M.N., A.N.) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, and Science and Technology of the Japanese government.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Makoto Nakamura.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nakamura, M., Ishikawa, K., Nagai, T. et al. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis of multifocal VEPs to diagnose and quantify glaucomatous functional damage. Doc Ophthalmol 123, 93–108 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-011-9285-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-011-9285-y

Keywords

Navigation