Skip to main content
Log in

The effect of filtering on the two-global-flash mfERG: identifying the optimal range of frequency for detecting glaucomatous retinal dysfunction

Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To study the effects of filtering bandwidth on the two-global-flash multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) responses in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) compared with control subjects.

Methods

A two-global-flash mfERG (VERIS 6.06™, FMS III) was recorded in 20 healthy subjects and 22 POAG patients with a band-pass filter (BPF) of 1–300 Hz (103 Hexagons, M-sequence stimulus: Lmax 100 cd/m2, Lmin < 1 cd/m2, global flash: 200 cd/m2). The root-mean-square average of the central 10° was calculated. Three response epochs were analysed: the response to the focal flash, at 15–45 ms (DC), and the following two components induced by the effects of the preceding focal flash on the response to the global flashes at 45–75 ms (IC1) and at 75–105 ms (IC2). The following BPF settings were analysed: 1–300 Hz, 3–300 Hz, 10–300 Hz, 100–300 Hz, 200–300 Hz, 1–10 Hz, 1–100 Hz and 1–200 Hz.

Results

Filtering at 1–300 Hz showed significantly lower responses in POAG than in control subjects (p < 0.001) for all epochs analysed. At 1–100 Hz, this also held true even though the difference between the groups became smaller. At 1–10 Hz, responses were extremely small and did not differ between POAG and control (p > 0.5). This would suggest a filter setting of 10–300 Hz for mfERG recordings in POAG. However, when a filter setting of 10–300 Hz was compared to 1–300 Hz, with a filter setting of 10–300 Hz, the DC in POAG differed more (p < 0.0001) from normal than with 1–300 Hz (p = 0.0002). For IC1 and IC2, the stronger difference between POAG and control was found with 1–300 Hz (p < 0.0001) rather than with 10–300 Hz (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0005, respectively). For the ‘oscillatory potentials’ at 100–300 Hz, POAG and control differed significantly in IC1 and IC2 (p < 0.05), but not in DC (p = 0.8). However, filtering at 200–300 Hz did not show a difference between POAG and control (p > 0.5). Thus, we applied a filter setting of 1–200 Hz, which seemed to be most sensitive in detecting glaucomatous retinal dysfunction (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

A filter setting of 1–200 Hz appears most sensitive to detect glaucomatous damage if using a two-global-flash mfERG: using a band-pass filter a with lower low-frequency cut-off, containing the 10 Hz component, may be especially important in the small induced components that show glaucomatous damage most sensitively. High frequencies of 100–300 Hz also contain information that differentiates glaucoma from normal and thus should be included in the analysis.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Han Y, Bearse MA Jr, Schneck ME, Barez S, Jacobsen C, Adams AJ (2004) Towards optimal filtering of “standard” multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) recordings: findings in normal and diabetic subjects. Br J Ophthalmol 88:543–550

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Keating D, Parks S, Evans AL, Williamson TH, Elliott AT, Jay JL (1997) The effect of filter bandwidth on the multifocal electroretinogram. Doc Ophthalmol 92:291–300

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hood DC, Bach M, Brigell M, Keating D, Kondo M, Lyons JS, Marmor MF, McCulloch DL, Palmowski-Wolfe AM, International Society For Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision (2012) ISCEV standard for clinical multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) (2011 edition). Doc Ophthalmol 124:1–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Palmowski AM, Allgayer R, Heinemann-Vernaleken B, Ruprecht KW (2002) Multifocal electroretinogram with a multiflash stimulation technique in open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmic Res 34:83–89

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Palmowski-Wolfe AM, Todorova MG, Orguel S, Flammer J, Brigell M (2007) The ‘two global flash’ mfERG in high and normal tension primary open-angle glaucoma. Doc Ophthalmol 114:9–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fortune B, Bearse MA Jr, Cioffi GA, Johnson CA (2002) Selective loss of an oscillatory component from temporal retinal multifocal ERG responses in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43:2638–2647

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kramer SA, Ledolter AA, Todorova MG, Schötzau A, Orgül S, Palmowski-Wolfe AM (2012) The 2-global flash mfERG in glaucoma: attempting to increase sensitivity by reducing the focal flash luminance and changing filter settings. doi:10.1007/s10633-012-9360-z

  8. VERIS™ Science 5.1, Reference guide. http://veris-edi.com/pubftp/VERIS%20Documents/VERIS%205.1%20Ref%20Guides/. Accessed 21 Aug 2012

  9. R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bearse MA Jr, Shimada Y, Sutter EE (2000) Distribution of oscillatory components in the central retina. Doc Ophthalmol 100:185–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rangaswamy NV, Zhou W, Harweth RS, Frishman LJ (2006) Effect of experimental glaucoma in primates on oscillatory potentials of the slow-sequence mfERG. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:753–767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Luo X, Patel NB, Harwerth RS, Frishman LJ (2011) Loss of the low-frequency component of the global-flash multifocal electroretinogram in primate eyes with experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52:3792–3804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chu PHW, Chan HHL, Ng Y-f, Brown B, Siu AW, Beale BA, Gilger BC, Wongd F (2008) Porcine global flash multifocal electroretinogram: possible mechanisms for the glaucomatous changes in contrast response function. Vision Res 48:1726–1734

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hood DC (2000) Assessing retinal function with the multifocal technique. Prog Retin Eye Res 19:607–646

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Shimada Y, Bearse MA Jr, Sutter EE (2005) Multifocal electroretinograms combined with periodic flashes: direct responses and induced components. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 243:132–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chu PH, Chan HH, Brown B (2006) Glaucoma detection is facilitated by luminance modulation of the global flash multifocal electroretinogram. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:929–937

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Viswanathan S, Frishman LJ, Van Alstine AW, Lou X, Swanson WH (2009) Multifocal photopic negative responses (mfPhNR) of macaques and humans. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci (E-Abstract 4758, 2009 ARVO)

  18. Machida S, Toba Y, Ohtaki A, Gotoh Y, Kaneko M, Kurosaka D (2008) Photopic negative response of focal electoretinograms in glaucomatous eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49:5636–5644

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lachapelle P, Benoit J (1994) Interpretation of the filtered 100- to 1000-Hz electroretinogram. Doc Ophthalmol 86(1):33–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Keating D, Parks S, Evans A (2000) Technical aspects of multifocal ERG recording. Doc Ophthalmol 100:77–98

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by Swiss Government Scholarship for Foreign Students (FCS) 2009.0251; Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) 32003B-135219; LHW Stiftung Lichtenstein.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in the article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna A. Ledolter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ledolter, A.A., Kramer, S.A., Todorova, M.G. et al. The effect of filtering on the two-global-flash mfERG: identifying the optimal range of frequency for detecting glaucomatous retinal dysfunction. Doc Ophthalmol 126, 117–123 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-012-9364-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-012-9364-8

Keywords

Navigation