Performance of the DTL electrode compared to the Jet contact lens electrode in clinical testing

Documenta Ophthalmologica

Volumn 108, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 77-86

  Yin, Hang ^a   Pardue, Machelle T ^a,b  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ATLANTA VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

DTL electrode; Electroretinogram; Jet electrode

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CONTACT LENS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DARK ADAPTATION; ELECTRODE; ELECTRORETINOGRAPHY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIGHT ADAPTATION; RATING SCALE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CONTACT LENSES; DARK ADAPTATION; ELECTRORETINOGRAPHY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMANS; MICROELECTRODES; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETINA;

EID: 1842739486     PISSN: 00124486     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/B:DOOP.0000018395.78512.4e     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Dewar J. The physiological action of light. Nature 1877; 15: 433-35. In: Barber C. (ed.) Electrodes and the recording of the human electroretinogram. Int J Psychophysiol 1994; 16: 131-36.
2. Esakowitz L, Kriss A, Shawkat F. A comparison of four flash electroretinograms recorded from Burian Allen, Jet, C-Glide Gold Foil, DTL and skin electrodes. Eye 1993; 7: 169-71.
3. Dawson WW, Trick GL, Litskow CA. Improved electrode for electroretinography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1979; 18: 988-91.
4. McCulloch DL, Van Boemel GB, Borchert MS. Comparisons of contact lens, foil, fiber and skin electrodes for pattern electroretingrams. Doc Ophthalmol 1998; 94: 327-40.
5. Kuze M, Uji Y. Comparisons between Dawson, Trick, and Litzkow electrode and contact lens electrodes used in clinical electroretinography. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2000; 44: 374-80.
6. Hebert M, Lachapelle P, Dumont M. Reproducibility of electroretinograms recorded with DTL electrodes. Doc Ophthalmol 1995-96; 91: 333-42.
7. Hebert M, Vaegan, Lachapelle P. Reproducibility of ERG responses obtained with the DTL electrode. Vision Res 1999; 29: 1069-70.
8. Jacobi PC, Miliczek K, Zrenner E. Experiences with the international standard for clinical electroretinography: Normative values for clinical practice, interindividual and intraindividual variations and possible extensions. Doc Ophthalmol 1993; 85: 95-114.
9. Robson JG, Frishman LJ. Response linearity and kinetics of the cat retina: The bipolar cell component of the dark-adapted electroretinogram. Vis Neurosci 1995; 12: 837-50.
10. Weleber RG. The effect of age on human cone and rod ganzfeld electroretinograms. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1981; 20: 392-9.
11. Fishman GA, Birch DG, Holder GE, Brigell MG. Electrophysiologic testing disorders of the retina, optic nerve, and visual pathway. 2nd ed. San Francisco: American Academy of Ophthalmology, 2001.
12. Marmor MF, Zrenner E. Standard for clinical electroretinography (1994 update). Doc Ophthalmol 1995; 89: 199-210.
13. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; i: 307-10.
14. Honda Y. Some characteristics of the c-wave of ERGs recorded by a pair of electrodes on the cornea and sclera. Albrecht v Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophth 1977; 202: 19-26.
15. Cringle SJ, Alder VA, Brown MJ, Yu DY. Effect of scleral recording location on ERG amplitude. Current Eye Res 1986; 5: 959-65.
16. McAllan A, Sinn J, Aylward GW. The effect of gold foil electrode position on the electroretinogram in human subjects. Vision Res 1989; 29: 1085-7.