Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Methods of visual acuity determination with the spatial frequency sweep visual evoked potential

  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The spatial frequency sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP) is used to rapidly determine visual acuity in children or non-responsive patients. Two techniques have been used to separate signal from noise: (1) the 95% confidence interval for the signal amplitude (95% CI) or (2) the amplitude of a Fourier frequency adjacent to 2× the signal frequency (DFT). The purpose of this study is to determine if there is a significant difference in acuity estimates with these techniques.

Methods

Ten normal subjects (approximately 0.00 logMAR acuity) and 11 patients with decreased visual acuity took part in this project. Stimulus production and data analysis were done with an Enfant 4010 (Neuroscientific Corp). Standard VEP recording techniques were employed. The stimulus was a horizontal-oriented, sine wave grating that swept up the spatial frequency spectrum (contrast 80%, temporal reversal rate 7.5 Hz). Sweeps were repeated until the confidence intervals for the data were no longer decreasing. The Bailey Lovie logMAR chart was used to determine visual acuity. A line was fit to the high spatial frequency data using either the 95% CI or the DFT as the noise estimate. By using these linear equations, acuity estimates were obtained at 0, 1, and 2 μV signal amplitudes.

Results

The average logMAR acuity for the subjects with normal acuity was −0.06 ± 0.070 (SD). The sVEP acuity estimates were 0.08 ± 0.098, 0.18 ± 0.092, and 0.33 ± 0.195 (0, 1, and 2 μV extrapolations) with the 95% CI used as noise and 0.07 ± 0.100, 0.18 ± 0.103, and 0.33 ± 0.202 (0, 1, and 2 μV extrapolations) with the DFT used as noise. By using the average noise from the Fourier frequency as the extrapolation level, the acuity was 0.10 ± 0.098 logMAR. The average logMAR acuity for the subjects with decreased visual acuity was 0.67 ± 0.306 (SD). The sVEP acuity estimates were 0.53 ± 0.175, 0.66 ± 0.171, and 0.88 ± 0.295 (0, 1, and 2 μV extrapolations) with the 95% CI used as noise and 0.53 ± 0.179, 0.65 ± 0.176, and 0.86 ± 0.268 (0, 1, and 2 μV extrapolations) with the DFT used as noise. By using the average noise from the Fourier frequency as the extrapolation level, the acuity was 0.57 ± 0.186 logMAR. No significant difference was found between the two acuity estimate techniques for all of the subjects (repeated measures ANOVA, p=0.16, F20=2.131). The sVEP estimates of acuity to the 0 μV and noise levels were not significantly different from the logMAR acuity (paired t-test, all p values >0.05).

Conclusions

The results indicate that the sVEP acuity does not depend on the noise estimation technique. In agreement with prior studies, the sVEP acuity underestimates the logMAR acuity in normally sighted individuals by about an octave.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

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

DFT:

acuity extrapolated using the amplitude of a Fourier frequency adjacent to 2 × the signal frequency as the noise

ICC:

intraclass correlation coefficient

logMAR:

log of the minimum angle of resolution

95% CI:

acuity extrapolated using the 95% confidence interval of the data as noise

sVEP:

sweep visual evoked potential.

References

  1. AM Norcia CW. Tyler (1985) ArticleTitleInfant VEP acuity measurements: analysis of individual differences and measurement error Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 61 IssueID5 359–69

    Google Scholar 

  2. AM Norcia CW. Tyler (1985) ArticleTitleSpatial frequency sweep VEP: visual acuity during the first year of life Vision Res 25 IssueID10 1399–408

    Google Scholar 

  3. AM Norcia CW Tyler R Piecuch R Clyman J. Grobstein (1987) ArticleTitleVisual acuity development in normal and abnormal preterm human infants J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 24 IssueID2 70–4

    Google Scholar 

  4. RD Hamer AM Norcia CW Tyler C. Hsu-Winges (1989) ArticleTitleThe development of monocular and binocular VEP acuity Vision Res 29 IssueID4 397–408

    Google Scholar 

  5. I Gottlob MG Fendick S Guo AA Zubcov JV Odom RD. Reinecke (1990) ArticleTitleVisual acuity measurements by swept spatial frequency visual-evoked-cortical potentials (VECPs): clinical application in children with various visual disorders J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 27 IssueID1 40–7

    Google Scholar 

  6. I Gottlob SS Wizov JV Odom RD. Reinecke (1993) ArticleTitlePredicting optotype visual acuity by swept spatial visual-evoked potentials Clin Vision Sci 8 417–423

    Google Scholar 

  7. O Katsumi S Denno M Arai J Lopes Faria ParticleDe T. Hirose (1997) ArticleTitleComparison of preferential looking acuity and pattern reversal visual evoked response acuity in pediatric patients Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 235 IssueID11 684–90

    Google Scholar 

  8. EE Birch DR Hoffman R Uauy DG Birch C. Prestidge (1998) ArticleTitleVisual acuity and the essentiality of docosahexaenoic acid and arachidonic acid in the diet of term infants Pediatr Res 44 IssueID2 201–9

    Google Scholar 

  9. DA Thompson H Moller I Russell-Eggitt A. Kriss (1996) ArticleTitleVisual acuity in unilateral cataract Br J Ophthalmol 80 794–98

    Google Scholar 

  10. WH Ridder SuffixIII D McCulloch AM. Herbert (1998) ArticleTitleStimulus duration, neural adaptation, and sweep visual evoked potential acuity estimates Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 39 IssueID13 2759–68

    Google Scholar 

  11. PM Riddell B Ladenheim J Mast T Catalano R Nobile L. Hainline (1997) ArticleTitleComparison of measures of visual acuity in infants: Teller acuity cards and sweep visual evoked potentials Optom Vis Sci 74 IssueID9 702–7

    Google Scholar 

  12. Y Ohn O Katsumi Y Matsui H Tetsuka T. Hirose (1994) ArticleTitleSnellen visual acuity versus pattern reversal visual-evoked response acuity in clinical applications Ophthalmic Res 26 240–52

    Google Scholar 

  13. DA Thompson H Moller I Russell-Eggitt A. Kriss (1996) ArticleTitleVisual acuity in unilateral cataract Br J Ophthalmol 80 IssueID9 794–8

    Google Scholar 

  14. O Katsumi M Arai R Wajima S Denno T. Hirose (1996) ArticleTitleSpatial frequency sweep pattern reversal VER acuity vs Snellen visual acuity: effect of optical defocus Vision Res 36 IssueID6 903–9

    Google Scholar 

  15. M Arai O Katsumi FR Paranhos JM Lopes De Faria T. Hirose (1997) ArticleTitleComparison of Snellen acuity and objective assessment using the spatial frequency sweep PVER Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 235 IssueID7 442–7

    Google Scholar 

  16. A Arditi R. Cagenello (1993) ArticleTitleOn the statistical reliability of letter-chart visual acuity measurements Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 34 IssueID1 120–9

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William H. Ridder III.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ridder, W.H. Methods of visual acuity determination with the spatial frequency sweep visual evoked potential. Doc Ophthalmol 109, 239–247 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-004-8053-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-004-8053-7

Keywords

Navigation