Repeatability of normal multifocal VEP: Implications for detecting progression

Journal of Glaucoma

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 131-141

  Fortune, Brad ^a   Demirel, Shaban ^a   Zhang, Xian ^b   Hood, Donald C ^b   Johnson, Chris A ^a  

^a DEVERS EYE INSTITUTE   (United States)

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

Author keywords

Electrophysiology; Glaucoma posterior segment; Multifocal VEP; Progression; Visual evoked potential

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROL GROUP; DISEASE COURSE; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; EVOKED VISUAL RESPONSE; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MATHEMATICAL PARAMETERS; MULTIFOCAL EVOKED VISUAL RESPONSE; NORMAL HUMAN; PERIMETRY; POINT WISE LIMIT OF AGREEMENT; POSTERIOR SEGMENT GLAUCOMA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SITA STANDARD THRESHOLD ALGORITHM; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL STIMULATION;

ADULT; AGED; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES, OPHTHALMOLOGICAL; DISEASE PROGRESSION; EVOKED POTENTIALS, VISUAL; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 33646758875     PISSN: 10570829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00061198-200604000-00010     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Fitzke FW, McNaught AI. The diagnosis of visual field progression in glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 1994;5:110-115.
2. Spry PG, Johnson CA. Identification of progressive glaucomatous visual field loss. Surv Ophthalmol. 2002;47:158-173.
3. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Brigatti L, Weitzman M, et al. Comparison of methods to detect visual field progression in glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:1228-1236.
4. Katz J, Congdon N, Friedman DS. Methodological variations in estimating apparent progressive visual field loss in clinical trials of glaucoma treatment. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:1137-1142.
5. Vesti E, Johnson CA, Chauhan BC. Comparison of different methods for detecting glaucomatous visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:3873-3879.
6. Heijl A, Lindgren A, Lindgren G. Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields. Am J Ophthalmol. 1989;108:130-135.
7. Chauhan BC, Johnson CA. Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:648-656.
8. Artes PH, Iwase A, Ohno Y, et al. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast strategies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:2654-2659.
9. Spry PG, Johnson CA, McKendrick AM, et al. Measurement error of visual field tests in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87:107-112.
10. Artes PH, Hutchison DM, Nicolela MT, et al. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:2451-2457.
11. Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA, Poinoosawmy D, et al. Analysis of visual field progression in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1996;80:40-48.
12. Gardiner SK, Crabb DP. Examination of different pointwise linear regression methods for determining visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:1400-1407.
13. Spry PG, Johnson CA, Bates AB, et al. Spatial and temporal processing of threshold data for detection of progressive glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:173-180.
14. Gardiner SK, Crabb DP, Fitzke FW, et al. Reducing noise in suspected glaucomatous visual fields by using a new spatial filter. Vision Res. 2004;44:839-848.
15. Boden C, Blumenthal EZ, Pascual J, et al. Patterns of glaucomatous visual field progression identified by three progression criteria. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138:1029-1036.
16. Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, et al. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1997;75:368-375.
17. Turpin A, McKendrick AM, Johnson CA, et al. Performance of efficient test procedures for frequency-doubling technology perimetry in normal and glaucomatous eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:709-715.
18. Turpin A, McKendrick AM, Johnson CA, et al. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, ZEST, and SITA-like strategies, as determined by computer simulation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:4787-4795.
19. Johnson CA. Recent developments in automated perimetry in glaucoma diagnosis and management. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2002;13:77-84.
20. Spry PG, Johnson CA, McKendrick AM, et al. Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:1404-1410.
21. Baseler HA, Sutter EE, Klein SA, et al. The topography of visual evoked response properties across the visual field. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1994;90:65-81.
22. 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.
23. Hood DC, Greenstein VC. Multifocal VEP and ganglion cell damage: applications and limitations for the study of glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2003;22:201-251.
24. Klistorner A, Graham SL. Objective perimetry in glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:2283-2299.
25. Graham SL, Klistorner AI, Grigg JR, et al. Objective VEP perimetry in glaucoma: asymmetry analysis to identify early deficits. J Glaucoma. 2000;9:10-19.
26. 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.
27. Hasegawa S, Abe H. Mapping of glaucomatous visual field defects by multifocal VEPs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:3341-3348.
28. Goldberg I, Graham SL, Klistorner AI. Multifocal objective perimetry in the detection of glaucomatous field loss. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;133:29-39.
29. Fortune B, Goh K, Demirel S, et al. Detection of glaucomatous visual field loss using the multifocal visual evoked potential. In: Henson DB, Wall M, eds. Perimetry Update 2002/2003; Proceedings of the XVth International Perimetric Society Meeting. The Hague: Kugler; 2003:251-160.
30. Thienprasiddhi P, Greenstein VC, Chen CS, et al. Multifocal visual evoked potential responses in glaucoma patients with unilateral hemifield defects. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;136:34-40.
31. Hood DC, Thienprasiddhi P, Greenstein VC, et al. Detecting early to mild glaucomatous damage: a comparison of the multifocal VEP and automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:492-498.
32. Bengtsson B. Evaluation of VEP perimetry in normal subjects and glaucoma patients. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2002;80:620-626.
33. Chen CS, Hood DC, Zhang X, et al. Repeat reliability of the multifocal visual evoked potential in normal and glaucomatous eyes. J Glaucoma. 2003;12:399-408.
34. Bjerre A, Grigg JR, Parry NR, et al. Test-retest variability of multifocal visual evoked potential and SITA standard perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:4035-4040.
35. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:135-160.
36. Fortune B, Zhang X, Hood DC, et al. Normative ranges and specificity of the multifocal VEP. Doc Ophthalmol. 2004;109:87-100.
37. Hood DC, Zhang X, Hong JE, et al. Quantifying the benefits of additional channels of multifocal VEP recording. Doc Ophthalmol. 2002;104:303-320.
38. 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.
39. Hood DC, Greenstein VC, Odel JG, et al. Visual field defects and multifocal visual evoked potentials: evidence of a linear relationship. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:1672-1681.
40. Hood DC, Zhang X, Winn BJ. Detecting glaucomatous damage with multifocal visual evoked potentials: how can a monocular test work? J Glaucoma. 2003;12:3-15.
41. Johnson CA, Sample PA, Cioffi GA, et al. Structure and function evaluation (SAFE): I. Criteria for glaucomatous visual field loss using standard automated perimetry (SAP) and short wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP). Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;134:177-185.
42. Heijl A, Patella VM. Essential Perimetry. 3rd ed. Dublin, CA: Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc.; 2002.
43. Chauhan BC, Henson DB, Hobley AJ. Cluster analysis in visual field quantification. Doc Ophthalmol. 1988;69:25-39.
44. Asman P, Heijl A, Olsson J, et al. Spatial analyses of glaucomatous visual fields; a comparison with traditional visual field indices. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenhagen). 1992;70:679-686.
45. Mandava S, Zulauf M, Zeyen T, et al. An evaluation of clusters in the glaucomatous visual field. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993;116:684-691.
46. Chauhan BC, House PH, McCormick TA, et al. Comparison of conventional and high-pass resolution perimetry in a prospective study of patients with glaucoma and healthy controls. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:24-33.
47. Katz J, Quigley HA, Sommer A. Detection of incident field loss using the glaucoma hemifield test. Ophthalmology. 1996;103:657-663.
48. Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Quigg JM, et al. Confirmation of visual field abnormalities in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:1187-1194.
49. James AC. The pattern-pulse multifocal visual evoked potential. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:879-890.
50. Fortune B, Demirel S, Bui BV. Multifocal VEP responses to pattern-reversal, onset, offset, and sparse pulse stimuli. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:E-Abstract 3755.