Objective measurement of visual function in glaucoma

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 78-82

  Hood, Donald C ^a  

^a Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

Author keywords

Electroretinogram; Multifocal VEP; Pattern ERG; Visual evoked potential

Indexed keywords

DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; ELECTRORETINOGRAPHY; EVOKED VISUAL RESPONSE; FUNCTION TEST; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; NERVE CELL LESION; NONHUMAN; PERIMETRY; PHOTOPIC VISION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; VISION; VISUAL DISCRIMINATION;

ELECTRORETINOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS, VISUAL; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; PERIMETRY;

EID: 0038239626     PISSN: 10408738     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00055735-200304000-00004     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. Viswanathan S, Frishman LJ, Robson JG, et al.: The photopic negative response of the macaque electroretinogram is reduced by experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999, 40:1124-1136.
2. Viswanathan S, Frishman LJ, Robson JG: The uniform field and pattern ERG in macaques with experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000, 41:2797-2810.
3. Viswanathan S, Frishman LJ, Robson JG, et al.: The photopic negative response of the flash electroretinogram in primary open angle glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000, 42:514-522.
4. Colotto A, Falsini B, Salgarello T, et al.: Photopic negative response of the human ERG: losses associated with glaucomatous damage. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000, 41:2205-2211.
5. Drasdo N, Aldebasi YH, Chiti Z, et al.: The s-cone PhNR and pattern ERG in primary open angle glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001, 42:1266-1272.
6. Cursiefen C, Korth M, Horn FK: The negative response of the flash electroretinogram in glaucoma. Doc Ophthalmol 2000, 103:1-12.
7. Graham SL, Drance SM, Chauhan BC, et al.: Comparison of psychophysical and electrophysiologic testing in early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1996, 37:2651-2662.
8. Riggs LA, Johnson LP Schick AML: Electrical responses of the human eye to moving stimulus pattern. Science 1964, 144:567-568.
9. Bach M, Hawlina M, Holder GE, et al.: Standard for pattern electroretinography. Doc Ophthalmol 2000, 101:11-18.
10. Holder GE: The pattern electroretinogram. In Electrophysiologic Testing in Disorders of the Retina, Optic Nerve, and Visual Pathway, edn 2. Edited by Holder GE, Fishman GA, Birch DG, et al. San Francisco: The Foundation of the American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2001:197-235.
11. Korth M: The value of electrophysiologic testing in glaucomatous diseases. J Glaucoma 1997, 6:331-343.
12. Holder GE: Pattern electroretinography (PERG) and an integrated approach to visual pathway diagnosis. Prog Retin Eye Res 2001, 20:531-561. A review of the PERG, including its origins and its clinical utility.
13. Bach M: Electrophysiologic approaches for early detection of glaucoma. Eur J Ophthalmol 2001, 2:S41-S49. A review of electrophysiologic measure of glaucomatous damage in general and the steady-state PERG in particular.
14. Bayer AU, Maag KP, Erb C: Detection of optic neuropathy in glaucomatous eyes with normal standard visual fields using a test battery of short-wavelength automated perimetry and pattern electroretinography. Ophthalmology 2002, 109:1350-1361.
15. Bayer AU, Erb C: Short wavelength automated perimetry, frequency doubling technology perimetry, and pattern electroretinography for prediction of progressive glaucomatous standard visual field defects. Ophthalmology 2002, 109:1009-1017.
16. Sutter EE: Imaging visual function with the multifocal m-sequence technique. Vision Res 2001, 41:1241-1255.
17. Hood DC: Assessing retinal function with the multifocal ERG technique. Prog Retin Eye Res 2000, 19:607-646.
18. Hood DC, Seiple W, Holopigian K, et al.: A comparison of the components of the multifocal and full-field ERGs. Vis Neurosci 1997, 14:533-544.
19. Hood DC, Frishman LJ, Saszik S, et al: Retinal origins of the primate multifocal ERG: implications for the human response. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002, 43:1676-1685.
20. Hood DC, Greenstein VC, Holopigian K, et al.: An attempt to detect glaucomatous damage to the inner retina with the multifocal ERG. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000, 41:1570-1579.
21. Fortune B, Johnson CA, Cioffi GA: The topographic relation between multifocal electroretinographic and behavioral perimetric measures of function in glaucoma. Optom Vis Sci 2001, 78:206-214.
22. Fortune B, Bearse MA Jr, Cioffi GA, et al.: Selective loss of an oscillatory component from temporal retinal multifocal ERG responses in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002, 43:2638-2647. This is an attempt to use a new mfERG paradigm to detect glaucomatous damage. A selective loss of an oscillatory feature of the mfERG was found in patients with glaucoma.
23. Palmowski AM, Allgayer R, Heinemann-Vernaleken B, et al.: Multifocal electroretinogram with a multiflash stimulation technique in open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmic Res 2002, 43:83-89. This is an attempt to use a new mfERG paradigm to detect glaucomatous damage.
24. Sakemi F, Yoshii M, Okisaka S: Multifocal electroretinograms in early primary open angle glaucoma. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2002, 46:443-450.
25. Sutter EE, Bearse MA: The optic nerve head component of the human ERG. Vis Res 1999, 39:419-436.
26. Hood DC, Bearse MA, Sutter EE, et al.: The optic nerve head component of the monkey's (Macaca mulatta) multifocal electroretinogram (mERG). Vision Res 2001, 41:2029-2041.
27. Bearse MA, Sutter EE, Sim, D, et al.: Glaucomatous dysfunction revealed in higher order components of the electroretinogram. Vision Science and Its Applications, OSA Tech. Dig. Ser. 1; 1996, 104-107.
28. Baseler HA, Sutter EE, Klein SA, et al.: The topography of visual evoked response properties across the visual field. Electroencephal Clin Neurophysiol 1994, 90:65-81.
29. Hood DC, Odel JG, Winn BJ: The mfVEP: Applications and limitations in neuro-ophthalmology. J Neuroophthalmol, in press.
30. Hood DC, Greenstein VC: The multifocal VEP and ganglion cell damage: applications and limitations for the study of glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res 2003, 22:201-251. A review of the mfVEP technology developed by this group, including a theoretic framework for comparing mfVEP responses to SAP field losses.
31. Fortune B, Hood DC: Conventional pattern-reversal VEPs are not equivalent to summed multifocal VEPs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003, 44:1364-1375.
32. Klistorner AI, Graham SL, Grigg JR, et al.: Multifocal topographic visual evoked potential: Improving objective detection of local visual field defects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1998, 39:937-950.
33. Graham SL, Klistorner AI, Grigg JR, et al.: Objective VEP perimetry in glaucoma: asymmetry analysis to identify early defects. J Glaucoma 2000, 9:10-19.
34. Hood DC, Zhang X, Greenstein VC, et al.: An interocular comparison of the multifocal VEP: A possible technique for detecting local damage to the optic nerve. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000, 41:1580-1587.
35. Klistorner AI, Graham SL: Electroencephalogram-based scaling of multifocal visual evoked potentials: Effect on intersubject amplitude variability. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001, 42:2145-2152.
36. Zhang X, Hood DC, Chen CS, et al.: A signal-to-noise analysis of multifocal VEP responses: An objective definition for poor records. Doc Ophthalmol 2002, 104:287-302.
37. Hood DC, Zhang X, Hong JE, Chen CS: Quantifying the benefits of additional channels of multifocal VEP recording. Doc Ophthalmol 2002, 104:303-320.
38. Hasegawa S, Abe H: Mapping of glaucomatous visual field defects by multifocal VEPs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001, 42:3341-3348.
39. Goldberg I, Graham SL, Klistorner AI: Multifocal objective perimetry in the detection of glaucomatous field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 2001, 133:29-39. The mfVEP did better than SAP in detecting glaucomatous field loss.
40. Hood DC, Zhang, X, Winn BJ: Detecting glaucomatous damage with the mfVEP: How can a monocular test work? J Glaucoma 2003, 12:3-15.
41. Hood DC, Zhang X: Multifocal ERG and VEP responses and visual fields: comparing disease-related changes. Doc Ophthalmol 2000, 100:115-137.
42. Fortune B, Goh K, Demirel S, et al.: Detection of glaucomatous visual field loss using multifocal VEP. Perimetry Update 2002/3, in press.
43. Hood DC, Greenstein VC, Odel JG, et al.: Visual field defects and multifocal visual evoked potentials: evidence for a linear relationship. Arch Ophthalmol, 2003, 120:1672-1681. A quantitative comparison of field defects and mfVEP amplitudes argued for a linear relationship between the amplitude of the signal in the mfVEP and the visual field loss expressed in linear, not dB, units.
44. Horn FK, Jonas JB, Budde WM, et al.: Monitoring glaucoma progression with visual evoked potentials of the blue-sensitive pathway. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002, 43:1828-1834. Using S-cone stimuli, implicit time delays were significantly associated with progression of optic nerve damage.
45. Kerrigan-Baumrind LA, Quigley HA, Pease ME, et al.: Number of ganglion cells in glaucoma eyes compared with threshold visual field tests in the same persons. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002, 41:741-748.
46. Quigley HA: Neuronal death in glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res 1999, 18:39-57.
47. Garway-Heath DF, Holder GE, Fitzke FW, et al.: Relation between electrophysiologic, psychophysical, and anatomic measurements in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002, 43:2213-2220.
48. Bach M, Sulimma F, Gerling J: Little correlation of the pattern electroretinogram (PERG) and visual field measures in early glaucoma. Doc Ophthalmol 1997-98, 94:253-263.