Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparisons of contact lens, foil, fiber and skin electrodes for patterns electroretinograms

  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pattern electroretinograms are small physiologic signals that require good patient cooperation and long recording times, particularly when conditions are not optimal. Six electrodes were compared to evaluate their efficacy. Pattern electroretinograms were recorded in eight healthy volunteers to high-contrast, pattern-reversal checks (40′ width) with Burian-Allen, DTL fiber, C-glide, gold foil, HK loop and skin electrodes. Raw data for 320 reversals were analyzed off-line to evaluate signal amplitude, quality, P50 and N95 peak times, artifact rate and electrical noise. Insertion time, impedance and subjective comfort were also assessed. The Burian-Allen contact lens electrode gave the largest signal and lowest impedance but was the least comfortable and had the highest artifact rate (p<0.01). A skin electrode on the lower eyelid produced the smallest pattern electroretinogram with the poorest quality (p<0.05). The four other electrodes were foil or fiber electrodes in contact with the tear film, conjunctiva and/or the inferior cornea. The signal from these showed only minor differences. When electrodes are compared for pattern electroretinograms recording, the foil and fiber electrodes do not differ substantially but contact lens and skin electrodes show substantial disadvantages.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ANOVA:

analysis of variance

PLSD:

protected least significant difference

References

  1. Maffei L. Electroretinographic and visual cortical potentials in response to alternating gratings. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1982; 388: 1–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Berninger TA, Arden GB. The pattern electroretinogram. Eye 1988; 2 (suppl): S257–83.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sherman J. Simultaneous pattern-reversal electroretinograms and visual evoked potentials in diseases of the macula and optic nerve. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1982; 388: 214–26.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Celesia GG, Kaufman D, Cone S. Simultaneous recording of pattern electroretinography and visual evoked potentials in multiple sclerosis: a method to separate demyelnation from axonal damage. Arch Neurol 1986; 43: 1247–52.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hull BM, thompson DA. A review of the clinical applications of the pattern electroretinogram. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1989; 9: 143–52.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bradshaw K. Early onset of abnormality of the pattern-evoked. ERG in patients with optic neuritis. Clin Vision Sci 1992; 4: 313–25.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bach M, Gerling J, Geiger K. Optic atrophy reduces the pattern-electroretinogram for both fine and coarse stimulus patterns. Clin Vision Sci 1992; 4: 327–33.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Odom JV, Holder GE, Feghali JG, Cavender S. Pattern electroretinogram intrasession reliability: a two center comparison. Clin Vision Sci 1992; 4: 263–81.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Marmor M, Holder GE, Porciatti V, Trick GI, Zrenner E for ISCEV. Guidelines for basic pattern electroretinography: recommendations by the International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision. Doc Ophthalmol. In press. 1996; 91: 291–298.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Robins J, Turner J. Assessment of various types of electrode in clinical ERG. Impulse 1988; 5: 2–5.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gjötterberg M. Electrodes for electroretinography: a comparison of four different types. Arch Ophthalmol 1983; 104: 569–70.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hawlina M, Konec B. New non-corneal ‘HK-loop’ electrode for clinical ERG. Doc Ophthalmol 1992; 81: 253–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Eskowitz L, Kriss A, Shawkat F. A comparison of flash electroretinograms recorded from Burian Allen, Jet, C-glide, gold foil, DTL and skin electrodes. Eye 1993; 7: 169–71.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Papakostopoulos D, Barber C, Dean-Hart JC. The sampling properties of different types of ERG electrode. Clin Vision Sci 1993; 8: 481–8.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hennessy MP, Vaegan. Amplitude scaling relationships of Burian-Allen, gold foil and Dawson, Trick and Litzkow electrodes. Doc Ophthalmol 1995; 89: 235–48.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kriss A, Jeffrey B, Taylor D. The electroretinogram in infants and children. J Clin Neurophysiol 1992; 9: 373–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Coupland SG, Janaky M. ERG electrode in pediatric patients: comparison of DTL fibre, PVA-gel and non-corneal skin electrodes. Doc Ophthalmol 1989; 71: 427–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Wali N, Leguire LE. Dark adapted luminance-response functions with skin and corneal electrodes. Doc Ophthalmol 1991; 76: 367–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hawlina M. Pattern electroretinography with the new HK-loop electrode. Chibret Int J Ophthalmol 1993; 9: 51–58.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Prager TC, Saad N, Schweitzer FC, Garcia CA, Arden GB. Electrode comparison in pattern electroretinography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1992; 33: 390–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Burian HM, Allen L. A speculum contact lens electrode for electroretinography. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1954; 6: 509–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lawill T, Burian HM. A modification of the Burian-Allen contact lens electrode for electroretinography. Am J Ophthalmol 1966; 61: 1506–9.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Barber C. Electrodes and the recording of the human electroretinogram (ERG). Int J Psychophysiol 1994; 16: 131–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Dawson WW, Trick GL, Litzkow CA. Improved electrode for electroretinography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1979; 18: 988–91.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Arden GB, Carter RM, Hogg C, Siegal IM, Margolis S. A gold foil electrode: extending the horizons for clinical electroretinography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1979; 16: 421–6.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Adashi-Usami E, Kuroda N, Nakajima I. Distribution of pattern-evoked potentials in the facial area. Am J Ophthalmol 1983; 96: 734–739.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Peachy NS, Sokol S, Moskowitz A. Recording the contralateral PERG: effect of different electrodes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1983; 24: 1514–6.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Seiple WH, Seigel IM. Recording the pattern electroretinogram: a cautionary note. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1983; 24: 796–798.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Winer BJ. Statistical principals in experimental design. International student edition. Tokyo: McGraw Hill Kogakusha Ltd, 1971: 196–201.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Marmor MF, Zrenner E, for the International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision. Standard for clinical electroretinography (1994 update). Doc Ophthalmol 1995; 89: 199–210.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Harden A. Non-corneal electroretinogram. Br J Ophthalmol 1974; 58: 811–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Hèbert M, Lachapelle P, Dumont M. Reproducibility of electroretinograms recorded with DTL electrodes. Doc Ophthalmol 1996; 91: 333–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Prager TC, Fea AM, Sponsel WE, Schweitzer FC, McNulty L, Garcia CA. The gold foil electrode in pattern electroretinography. Doc Ophthalmol 1994; 86: 267–274.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Arden GB, Hogg C, Holder GE. Gold foil electrodes: a two centre study of electrode reliability. Doc Ophthalmol 1994; 86: 275–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Vaegan. Electrode standards in electroretinography. Doc Ophthalmol 1996; 92: 243–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Gretchen B Van Boemel

  2. Division of Ophthalmology, Childrens Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Mark S. Borchert

  3. Department of Vision Science, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, G4 OBA, Glasgow, UK

    Daphne L. McCulloch

Authors
  1. Daphne L. McCulloch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gretchen B Van Boemel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark S. Borchert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McCulloch, D.L., Van Boemel, G.B. & Borchert, M.S. Comparisons of contact lens, foil, fiber and skin electrodes for patterns electroretinograms. Doc Ophthalmol 94, 327–340 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02580858

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02580858

Key words

Search

Navigation