Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Objective and quantitative assessment of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity based on steady-state motion visual evoked potentials using concentric-ring paradigm

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

Abstract

Purpose

The traditional assessment of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity depends more on subjective judgments. Steady-state motion visual evoked potentials (SSMVEPs) can provide an objective and quantitative method to evaluate visual functions such as visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. Here, we explored the possibility of objective SSMVEP visual acuity and contrast sensitivity testing, and compared its performance with that of psychophysical methods.

Methods

In this study, we designed a specific concentric ring with oscillating expansion and contraction SSMVEP paradigm to assess visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. By changing the parameters of the paradigm, the SSMVEP paradigm with different contrasts and spatial frequencies corresponding to different visual acuity and contrast sensitivity was designed. Moreover, we proposed a threshold determination criterion to define the corresponding objective SSMVEP visual acuity and contrast sensitivity.

Results

We tested visual acuity and contrast sensitivity of sixteen healthy adults utilizing this paradigm with an electroencephalography system. Our data suggested that there was no significant difference between objective visual acuity and contrast sensitivity measurements based on the SSMVEPs and subjective psychophysical ones.

Conclusion

Our study proved that SSMVEPs can be an objective and quantitative method to measure visual acuity and contrast sensitivity.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bourne RRA, Flaxman SR, Braithwaite T, Cicinelli MV, Das A, Jonas JB, Keeffe J, Kempen JH, Leasher J, Limburg H, Naidoo K, Pesudovs K, Resnikoff S, Silvester A, Stevens GA, Tahhan N, Wong TY, Taylor HR, Vision Loss Expert G (2017) Magnitude, temporal trends, and projections of the global prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health 5(9):e888–e897. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30293-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. World Health Organization (2018) Blindness and visual impairment. https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/blindness-and-visual-impairment. Accessed 11 Oct 2018

  3. Mackay A (2003) Assessing children’s visual acuity with steady state evoked potentials. Dissertation, University of Glasgow

  4. Hemptinne C, Liu-Shuang J, Yuksel D, Rossion B (2018) Rapid objective assessment of contrast sensitivity and visual acuity with sweep visual evoked potentials and an extended electrode array. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 59(2):1144–1157. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.17-23248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Heinrich SP, Bock CM, Bach M (2016) Imitating the effect of amblyopia on VEP-based acuity estimates. Doc Ophthalmol 133(3):183–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-016-9565-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Alves Pereira S, Costa MF (2012) Visual acuity evaluation in children with hydrocephalus: an electrophysiological study with sweep visual evoked potential. World J Neurosci 02(01):36–43. https://doi.org/10.4236/wjns.2012.21006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kurtenbach A, Langrová H, Messias A, Zrenner E, Jägle H (2013) A comparison of the performance of three visual evoked potential-based methods to estimate visual acuity. Documenta ophthalmologica Adv Ophthalmol 126(1):45–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-012-9359-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Vesely P (2015) Contribution of sVEP visual acuity testing in comparison with subjective visual acuity. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 159(4):616–621. https://doi.org/10.5507/bp.2015.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Norcia AM, Tyler CW (1985) Spatial frequency sweep VEP: visual acuity during the first year of life. Vis Res 25(10):1399–1408. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(85)90217-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Almoqbel FM, Yadav NK, Leat SJ, Head LM, Irving EL (2011) Effects of sweep VEP parameters on visual acuity and contrast thresholds in children and adults. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 249(4):613–623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-010-1469-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhou P, Zhao MW, Li XX, Hu XF, Wu X, Niu LJ, Yu WZ, Xu XL (2008) A new method of extrapolating the sweep pattern visual evoked potential acuity. Doc Ophthalmol 117(2):85–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-007-9095-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Norcia AM, Tyler CW, Hamer RD, Wesemann W (1989) Measurement of spatial contrast sensitivity with the swept contrast VEP. Vis Res 29(5):627–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(89)90048-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Han C, Xu G, Xie J, Chen C, Zhang S (2018) Highly interactive brain-computer interface based on flicker-free steady-state motion visual evoked potential. Sci Rep 8(1):5835. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24008-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Yan W, Xu G, Xie J, Li M, Dan Z (2018) Four novel motion paradigms based on steady-state motion visual evoked potential. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 65(8):1696–1704. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2017.2762690

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Xie J, Xu G, Wang J, Zhang F, Zhang Y (2012) Steady-state motion visual evoked potentials produced by oscillating Newton’s rings: implications for brain-computer interfaces. PLoS ONE 7(6):e39707. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039707

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Bach M, Maurer JP, Wolf ME (2008) Visual evoked potential-based acuity assessment in normal vision, artificially degraded vision, and in patients. Br J Ophthalmol 92(3):396–403. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2007.130245

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hoffmann MB, Brands J, Behrens-Baumann W, Bach M (2017) VEP-based acuity assessment in low vision. Doc Ophthalmol 135(3):209–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-017-9613-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Brainard DH (1997) The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spat Vis 10(4):433–436. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856897X00357

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Franco S, Silva AC, Carvalho AS, Macedo AS, Lira M (2010) Comparison of the VCTS-6500 and the CSV-1000 tests for visual contrast sensitivity testing. NeuroToxicology 31(6):758–761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2010.06.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Han C, Xu G, Xie J, Li M, Zhang S, Luo A (2017) An eighty-target high-speed Chinese BCI speller. In: 2017 39th annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC), 11–15 July 2017, pp 1652–1655. https://doi.org/10.1109/embc.2017.8037157

  21. Meigen T, Bach M (1999) On the statistical significance of electrophysiological steady-state responses. Doc Ophthalmol 98(3):207–232. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002097208337

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. McBain VA, Robson AG, Hogg CR, Holder GE (2007) Assessment of patients with suspected non-organic visual loss using pattern appearance visual evoked potentials. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 245(4):502–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-006-0431-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Abdullah SN, Vaegan Boon MY, Maddess T (2012) Contrast-response functions of the multifocal steady-state VEP (MSV). Clin Neurophysiol 123(9):1865–1871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2012.02.067

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wenner Y, Heinrich SP, Beisse C, Fuchs A, Bach M (2014) Visual evoked potential-based acuity assessment: overestimation in amblyopia. Doc Ophthalmol 128(3):191–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-014-9432-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hess RF, Mansouri B, Thompson B (2010) A new binocular approach to the treatment of amblyopia in adults well beyond the critical period of visual development. Restor Neurol Neurosci 28(6):793–802. https://doi.org/10.3233/rnn-2010-0550

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Holmes JM, Lazar EL, Melia BM, Astle WF, Dagi LR, Donahue SP, Frazier MG, Hertle RW, Repka MX, Quinn GE, Weise KK (2011) Effect of age on response to amblyopia treatment in children. Arch Ophthalmol 129(11):1451–1457. https://doi.org/10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.179

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all the subjects for their participation in this study. Supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC-51775415) and the Key Research and Development Program of Shaanxi Province of China (2018ZDCXL-GY-06-01).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Mechanical Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China

    Xiaowei Zheng, Guanghua Xu, Chengcheng Han, Chenghang Du, Wenqaing Yan, Sicong Zhang & Renghao Liang

  2. State Key Laboratory for Manufacturing Systems Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China

    Guanghua Xu

  3. School of Software Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China

    Yunyun Wang

Authors
  1. Xiaowei Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guanghua Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yunyun Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chengcheng Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chenghang Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Wenqaing Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sicong Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Renghao Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guanghua Xu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statement of human rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Statement on the welfare of animals

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zheng, X., Xu, G., Wang, Y. et al. Objective and quantitative assessment of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity based on steady-state motion visual evoked potentials using concentric-ring paradigm. Doc Ophthalmol 139, 123–136 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-019-09702-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-019-09702-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation