Skip to main content

Pattern visual evoked potentials in the assessment of objective visual acuity in amblyopic children

International Ophthalmology volume 30, pages 377–383 (2010)Cite this article

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the value of pattern visual evoked potentials (PVEP) to five consecutive check size patterns in the assessment of visual acuity (VA) in children. One hundred unilateral amblyopic (study group) and 90 healthy children with best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 1.0 (control group) were planned to be included. PVEP responses to five consecutive check sizes (2°, 1°, 30′, 15′, and 7′) which are assumed to correspond to VAs of 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.7 and 1.0 Snellen lines were recorded in both groups. Eighty-five children in the study group (85.0%) and 74 children in the control group (82.2%) who cooperated well with PVEP testing were included. Normal values for latency, amplitude, and normalized interocular amplitude/latency difference in each check size were defined in the control group. PVEP-estimated VA (PVEP-VA) in the amblyopic eye was defined by the normal PVEP responses to the smallest check size associated with normal interocular difference from the non-amblyopic eye, and was considered predictive if it is within ±1 Snellen line (1 decimal) discrepancy with BCVA in that eye. Mean age was 9.7 ± 1.9 and 9.9 ± 2.2 years in the study and the control groups, respectively. LogMAR (logarithm of minimum angle of resolution) Snellen acuity was well correlated with the logMAR PVEP-VA (r = 0.525, P < 0.001) in the study group. The Snellen line discrepancy between BCVA and PVEP-VA was within ±1 Snellen line in 57.6% of the eyes. PVEP to five consecutive check sizes may predict objective VA in amblyopic children.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Von Noorden GK (2002) Binocular vision and ocular motility: theory and management of strabismus, 6th edn. Mosby, St. Louis, p 246

  2. Kirschen DG, Flom MC (1978) Visual acuity at different retinal loci of eccentrically fixating functional amblyopia. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 55:144–150

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jenkins TC, Douthwaite WA (1988) An objective VER assessment of visual acuity compared with subjective measures. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 65:957–961

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Muller W, Schoneich H (1989) Relations between visual acuity, refraction and the pattern reversal visual-evoked cortical potential in aphakia. Ophthalmologica 198:89–94

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ohn YH, Katsumi O, Matsui Y, Tetsuka H, Hirose T (1994) Snellen visual acuity versus pattern reversal visual-evoked response acuity in clinical applications. Ophthalmic Res 26:240–252

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Simon F, Rassow B (1986) Retinal visual acuity with pattern VEP normal subjects and reproducibility. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 224:160–164

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sokol S, Hansen VC, Moskowitz A, Greenfield P, Towle VL (1983) Evoked potential and preferential looking estimates of visual acuity in pediatric patients. Ophthalmology 90:552–562

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chan H, Odom JV, Coldren J, Dove C, Chao GM (1986) Acuity estimated by visually evoked potentials is affected by scaling. Doc Ophthalmol 62:107–117

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tyler CW, Apkarian P, Levi DM, Nakayama K (1979) Rapid assessment of visual function: an electronic sweep technique for the pattern visual evoked potential. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 18:703–713

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gundogan FC, Sobaci G, Bayer A (2007) Pattern visual evoked potentials in the assessment of visual acuity in malingering. Ophthalmology 114:2332–2337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Odom JV, Bach M, Barber C, Brigell M, Marmor MF, Tormene AP, Holder GE, Vaegan (2004) Visual evoked potentials standard (2004). Doc Ophthalmol 108:115–123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fagan JE Jr, Yolton RL (1985) Theoretical reliability of visual evoked response-based acuity determinations. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 62:95–99

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Raniel Y, Pratt H, Neumann E, Schacham SE (1989) Miniature fiber-optic pattern-reversal stimulator for determination of the visual evoked potential threshold; comparison with Snellen acuity. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 227:212–215

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Shalka HW (1980) Comparison of Snellen acuity, VER acuity and Arden grating scores in macular and optic nerve diseases. Br J Ophthalmol 64:24–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sokol S (1980) Pattern visual evoked potentials: their use in pediatric ophthalmology. Int Ophthalmol Clin 20:251–268

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Marg E, Freeman DN, Peltzman P, Goldstein P (1976) Visual acuity development in human infants: evoked potential measurements. Invest Ophthalmol 15:150–153

    Google Scholar 

  17. Arai M, Katsumi O, Paranhos FR, Lopes De Faria JM, Hirose T (1997) Comparison of Snellen acuity and objective assessment using the spatial frequency sweep PVER. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 235:442–447

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Xu S, Meyer D, Yoser S, Mathews D, Elfervig JL (2001) Pattern visual evoked potential in the diagnosis of functional visual loss. Ophthalmology 108:76–80

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Steele M, Seiple WH, Carr RE, Klug R (1989) The clinical utility of visual-evoked potential acuity testing. Am J Ophthalmol 108:572–577

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Norcia AM, Tyler CW (1985) Spatial frequency sweep VEP. Visual acuity during the first year of life. Vision Res 25:1399–1408

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Katsumi O, Arai M, Wajima R, Denno S, Hirose T (1996) Spatial frequency sweep pattern reversal VER acuity vs Snellen visual acuity: effect of optical defocus. Vision Res 36:903–909

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, Göz Hastalıkları A.D, 06010, Etlik, Ankara, Turkey

    Fatih C. Gundogan, Fatih M. Mutlu, H. Ibrahim Altinsoy, Ahmet Tas & Gungor Sobaci

  2. Department of Neurology, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, Ankara, Turkey

    Oguzhan Oz

Authors
  1. Fatih C. Gundogan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fatih M. Mutlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. Ibrahim Altinsoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ahmet Tas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Oguzhan Oz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gungor Sobaci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fatih C. Gundogan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gundogan, F.C., Mutlu, F.M., Ibrahim Altinsoy, H. et al. Pattern visual evoked potentials in the assessment of objective visual acuity in amblyopic children. Int Ophthalmol 30, 377–383 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-010-9361-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-010-9361-4

Keywords

  • Pattern visual evoked potentials
  • Check size
  • Amblyopia
  • Visual acuity