Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Macular function measured by binocular mfERG and compared with macular structure in healthy children

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

Abstract

Purpose

To create normative data in children from binocular multifocal ERG (mfERG) recordings and compare results with the macular thickness.

Methods

Forty-nine 5- to 15-year-old healthy, full-term children were examined with Espion Multifocal System, using DTL electrodes. The stimulus matrix consisted of 37 hexagonal elements. Amplitudes, implicit times and response densities (presented in three rings) of the first-order component P1 were analyzed. Measurements of macular thickness were performed with spectral-domain Cirrus OCT.

Results

There were no significant differences between right and left eyes regarding mfERG recordings. Median P1 implicit times of Rings 1–3 of the 46 right eyes were 30.0, 30.0 and 30.8 ms and response densities 20.5, 10.9 and 7.6 nV/deg2, respectively. Implicit time was longer in boys than in girls (p = 0.009, 0.039, 0.005 in Rings 1–3) and was correlated with age (r s = 0.417, 0.316, 0.274 in Rings 1–3). Implicit time in Ring 1 correlated significantly with the inner circle of the OCT measurements (p = 0.014).

Conclusion

Binocular mfERG with DTL electrodes is a reliable test of the central macular function in children and correlates with macular structure. As previously not shown, there was a significant difference in implicit time between boys and girls.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. van Genderen M, Riemslag F, Jorritsma F et al (2006) The key role of electrophysiology in the diagnosis of visually impaired children. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 84:799–806

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sutter EE, Tran D (1992) The field topography of ERG components in man—I. The photopic luminance response. Vision Res 32:433–446

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hood DC, Greenstein V, Frishman L et al (1999) Identifying inner retinal contributions to the human multifocal ERG. Vision Res 39:2285–2291

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hood DC, Frishman LJ, Saszik S et al (2002) Retinal origins of the primate multifocal ERG: implications for the human response. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43:1673–1685

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sisk RA, Leng T (2014) Multimodal imaging and multifocal electroretinography demonstrate autosomal recessive Stargardt disease may present like occult macular dystrophy. Retina 34:1567–1575

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Praidou A, Hagan R, Newman W et al (2014) Early diagnosis of Stargardt disease with multifocal electroretinogram in children. Int Ophthalmol 34:613–621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kretschmann U, Bock M, Gockeln R et al (2000) Clinical applications of multifocal electroretinography. Doc Ophthalmol 100:99–113

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Andreasson S, Gosh F (2014) Cone implicit time as a predictor of visual outcome in macular hole surgery. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 252:1903–1909

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Molnar A, Holmström G, Larsson E (2015) Macular thickness assessed with spectral domain OCT in a population-based study of children: normative data, repeatability and reproducibility and comparison with time domain OCT. Acta Ophthalmol 2015(93):470–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hood DC, Bach M, Brigell M et al (2012) International Society For Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision. ISCEV standard for clinical multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) (2011 edition). Doc Ophthalmol 124:1–13

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dawson WW, Trick GL, Litzkow CA (1979) Improved electrode for electroretinography. Invest Ophtalmol Vis Sci 18:988–991

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group (1985) Photocoagulation for diabetic macular edema. Early treatment diabetic retinopathy study report. Arch Ophthalmol 103:1796–1806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Holm K, Lövestam Adrian M (2012) In diabetic eyes, multifocal ERG reflects differences in function between the nasal part and the temporal part of the macula. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 250:1143–1148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. R Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. BM Corporation, Armonk, NY. R version 3.0.1 R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org. Accessed 10 Mar 2015

  15. Mohidin N, Yap MK, Jacobs RJ (1997) The repeatability and variability of the multifocal electroretinogram for four different electrodes. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 17:530–535

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hennessy MP, Vaegan (1995) Amplitude scaling relationships of Burian-Allen, gold foil and Dawson, Trick and Litzkow electrodes. Doc Ophthalmol 89:235–248

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hébert M, Lachapelle P, Dumont M (1995–1996). Reproducibility of electroretinograms recorded with DTL electrodes. Doc Ophthalmol 91:333–342

  18. Curcio CA, Sloan KR, Kalina RE et al (1990) Human photoreceptor topography. J Comp Neurol 292:497–523

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Verdon WA, Haegerstrom-Portnoy G (1998) Topography of the multifocal electroretinogram. Doc Ophthalmol 95:73–90

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fulton AB, Hansen RM, Moskowitz A et al (2005) Multifocal ERG in subjects with a history of retinopathy of prematurity. Doc Ophthalmol 111:7–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jackson GR, Ortega J, Girkin C et al (2002) Aging-related changes in the multifocal electroretinogram. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 19:185–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Seeliger MW, Kretschmann UH, Apfelstedt-Sylla E et al (1998) Implicit time topography of multifocal electroretinograms. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 39:718–723

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hansen RM, Moskowitz A, Fulton AB (2009) Multifocal ERG responses in infants. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 50:470–475

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hendrickson A, Possin D, Vajzovic L et al (2012) Histologic development of the human fovea from midgestation to maturity. Am J Ophthalmol 154:767–778

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Seiple W, Vajaranant TS, Szlyk JP et al (2003) Multifocal electroretinography as a function of age: the importance of normative values for older adults. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:1783–1792

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gerth C, Sutter EE, Werner JS (2003) mfERG response dynamics of the aging retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:4443–4450

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ozawa GY, Bearse MA Jr, Harrison WW et al (2014) Differences in neuroretinal function between adult males and females. Optom Vis Sci 91:602–607

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Munaut C, Lambert V, Noël A et al (2001) Presence of oestrogen receptor type beta in human retina. Br J Ophthalmol 85:877–882

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Marin-Castaño ME, Elliot SJ, Potier M et al (2003) Regulation of estrogen receptors and MMP-2 expression by estrogens in human retinal pigment epithelium. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:50–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Dion LA, Muckle G, Bastien C et al (2013) Sex differences in visual evoked potentials in school-age children: What is the evidence beyond the checkerboard? Int J Psychophysiol 88:136–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Azad R, Ghatak U, Sharma YR et al (2012) Multifocal electroretinogram in normal emmetropic subjects: correlation with optical coherence tomography. Indian J Ophthalmol 60:49–52

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Holm K, Larsson J, Lövestam-Adrian M (2007) In diabetic retinopathy, foveal thickness of 300 μm seems to correlate with functionally significant loss of vision. Doc Ophthalmol 114:117–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Fujinami K, Zernant J, Chana RK et al (2015) Clinical and molecular characteristics of childhood-onset Stargardt disease. Ophthalmology 122:326–334

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Eksandh L, Kohl S, Wissinger B (2002) Clinical features of achromatopsia in Swedish patients with defined genotypes. Ophthalmic Genet 23:109–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kjellström S, Vijayasarathy C, Ponjavic V et al (2010) Long-term 12 year follow-up of X-linked congenital retinoschisis. Ophthalmic Genet 31:114–125

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Dale EA, Hood DC, Greenstein VC et al (2010) A comparison of multifocal ERG and frequency domain OCT changes in patients with abnormalities of the retina. Doc Ophthalmol 120:175–186

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Eva Nuija for efficient help and for performing the OCT measurements in the study. We also thank Marcus Thuresson, Statisticon AB, for valuable help with the statistical analyses. The study was supported by the Crown Princess Margareta Foundation for the Visually Impaired, Ögonfonden, and the Sigvard and Marianne Bernadotte Foundation. All authors certify that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements) or nonfinancial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neuroscience/Ophthalmology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Anna E. C. Molnar, Eva K. B. Larsson, Hanna M. Åkerblom & Gerd E. Holmström

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    Sten O. L. Andreasson

Authors
  1. Anna E. C. Molnar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sten O. L. Andreasson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eva K. B. Larsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hanna M. Åkerblom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gerd E. Holmström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerd E. Holmström.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors certify that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Statements of human rights

The tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki were strictly adhered to during the course of the study.

Informed consent

Written consent was obtained from the parents of the participating children and oral consent from children. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Uppsala University.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Molnar, A.E.C., Andreasson, S.O.L., Larsson, E.K.B. et al. Macular function measured by binocular mfERG and compared with macular structure in healthy children. Doc Ophthalmol 131, 169–176 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-015-9513-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-015-9513-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation