PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Donald C Hood

Publications and source records attributed to Donald C Hood.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2004

Detecting early to mild glaucomatous damage: a comparison of the multifocal VEP and automated perimetry.

PURPOSE: To gain better understanding of the relationship between abnormalities detected by the multifocal VEP (mfVEP) compared with those detected by static achromatic, automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma. METHODS: Fifty patients were studied who had open-angle glaucoma that met the following criteria: (1) a mean deviation (MD) of better than -8 dB in both eyes on the 24-2 Humphrey visual field (HVF) test (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA); and (2) glaucomatous damage in at least one eye, as defined by a glaucomatous optic disc and an abnormal 24-2 HVF test result (pattern standard deviation [PSD] <5% and/or glaucoma hemifield test [GHT] results outside normal limits). Monocular mfVEPs were obtained from each eye by using a pattern-reversal dartboard array, 44.5 degrees in diameter, which contained 60 sectors. Recording electrodes were placed at the inion (I) and I+4 cm, and also at two lateral locations up 1 cm and over 4 cm from I. Monocular and interocular mfVEP probability plots were derived by comparing the results with those of normal control subjects. For both the HVF and mfVEP probability plots, a hemifield was classified as abnormal if three or more contiguous points were significant at less than 5%, with at least one at less than 1%. RESULTS: Of the 200 hemifields tested (50 patients x two eyes x two hemifields), 75 showed significant clusters on the HVF, and 74 (monocular probability plot) and 93 (monocular or interocular plot) showed significant clusters on the mfVEP. Overall, the HVF and mfVEP results agreed on 74% of the hemifields, and 90 hemifields were normal and 58 were abnormal on both the mfVEP (interocular and/or monocular abnormal) and HVF cluster tests. Of the 52 disagreements, 35 hemifields had a significant cluster on the mfVEP, but not on the HVF, whereas the reverse was true of 17 hemifields. A case-by-case analysis indicated that misses and false-positive results occurred on both the HVF and mfVEP tests. CONCLUSIONS: As predicted from a theoretical analysis, under these conditions (i.e., the signal-to-noise level) the HVF and monocular mfVEP tests showed a comparable number of defects, and, with the addition of the interocular test, the mfVEP showed more abnormalities than the HVF. However, although there were abnormalities detected by the mfVEP that were missed by the HVF, the reverse was true as well.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Rod and cone photoreceptor function in patients with cone dystrophy.

PURPOSE: To determine the extent of rod and cone photoreceptor dysfunction in patients with cone dystrophy using psychophysical and electrophysiological tests. METHODS: Ten patients with cone dystrophy participated. Rod and cone system psychophysical thresholds were measured as a function of retinal eccentricity. Bright-flash full-field electroretinograms were obtained under dark-adapted (rod-mediated) and light-adapted (cone-mediated) conditions. The a-wave data were fitted with a model based on photopigment transduction to obtain values for log Rmax (maximum response) and log S (sensitivity). b-Wave parameters were also examined by fitting a nonlinear, saturating function (the Naka-Rushton equation) to the rod-mediated responses. Oscillatory potentials were measured to the cone-mediated high-intensity flashes. RESULTS: On average, the rod-mediated psychophysical thresholds were elevated by 0.5 log unit. These threshold elevations did not differ significantly with retinal eccentricity. In contrast, cone-mediated psychophysical thresholds were elevated up to 3.0 log units. Threshold elevation was greatest in the central retinal locations. For rod-mediated conditions, the a-wave Rmax parameter was significantly reduced in three patients; the a-wave log S parameter was within normal limits. The rod-mediated b-wave Rmax parameter was reduced in six patients; log k was abnormal in one patient. For cone-mediated conditions, the a-wave Rmax parameter was reduced in six patients and the a-wave log S parameter was reduced in two patients. The cone system oscillatory potentials were abnormal in nine patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cone dystrophy show different patterns of psychophysical rod versus cone system sensitivity losses with retinal eccentricity. The full-field electrophysiological data indicate that most of the patients had abnormal cone photoreceptor function. Some patients also showed rod photoreceptor abnormalities. The rod system changes were smaller than the cone system changes.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Multifocal visual evoked potential responses in glaucoma patients with unilateral hemifield defects.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) technique can detect damage to the visual system in the unaffected hemifields of patients with glaucoma and unilateral hemifield defects. DESIGN: Experimental study. METHODS: Monocular mfVEPs and achromatic automated perimetry (AAP) were obtained in both eyes of 16 patients with open-angle glaucoma and unilateral hemifield defects. The mfVEPs were obtained using a pattern-reversal dartboard array with 60 sectors; the entire display was 44.5 degrees in diameter. For each pair of mfVEP responses an interocular ratio of root-mean-square amplitude was calculated. These values were compared with the mean values obtained from 30 control subjects. Probability plots for MfVEP were derived. A cluster analysis was used to determine whether an mfVEP hemifield was normal or abnormal. RESULTS: Three of 60 (5.0%) mfVEP hemifields from control subjects had significant mfVEP deficits based upon a cluster of abnormal points. Significant mfVEP deficits were detected in the affected AAP hemifield in 15 of 16 (93.8%) glaucoma patients and in 6 of 16 patients in hemifields with apparently normal AAP. The percentage of hemifields with abnormal mfVEPs, but normal AAP, was significantly higher for the glaucoma patients than for the controls (37.5% vs 5.0%, P <.001, chi square).In glaucomatous eyes with achromatic visual fields defects limited to one hemifield, the mfVEP technique can detect evidence of glaucomatous damage in the unaffected hemifield.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Electrophysiology.

Numerous electrophysiologic tests are available for use in the clinic. When properly recorded and analyzed, these tests provide important diagnostic and prognostic information about the site and nature of the disease process. If the results from these tests are combined with psychophysical findings (color vision, acuity, visual fields), their usefulness in defining disease can be further extended.

Electrophysiology↗
PubMed2003

Multifocal VEP and ganglion cell damage: applications and limitations for the study of glaucoma.

With the multifocal technique, visual evoked potentials (VEPs) can be recorded simultaneously from many regions of the visual field in a matter of minutes. Recently, the multifocal visual evoked potential technique (mfVEP) has generated considerable interest, especially among those seeking objective measures of glaucomatous damage. It is well accepted that significant ganglion cell damage can occur before functional deficits are detected with static automated achromatic perimetry, the "gold standard" for detecting and monitoring glaucomatous damage. In this article, we ask the following questions: What are the potential applications of the mfVEP technique? What are its limitations? To what extent will it replace or augment static automated achromatic perimetry? To answer these questions requires an understanding of the mfVEP technique, as well as techniques needed to relate its results to those of automated perimetry. describes how the mfVEP is elicited, recorded, derived and displayed. If both eyes of an individual are normal, then mfVEPs recorded for monocular stimulation of each eye are essentially identical. However, the amplitude and waveform of the mfVEP responses vary across individuals, as well as across the visual field within an individual. These variations in the normal mfVEPs are described in Section 3. In, these variations are related to cortical anatomy, and to the cortical sources contributing to the mfVEP. The mfVEP is predominantly generated in V1. Although there are undoubtedly extrastriate contributions, these contributions are probably smaller for the mfVEP than for the conventional VEP. The mfVEP is not a small version of the conventional VEP. To detect ganglion cell damage with the mfVEP requires methods for analyzing the responses and for displaying the results. In, a method for detecting ganglion cell damage is described. This method compares the monocular responses from the two eyes of an individual and produces a map of the defects. This map is in the form of a probability plot similar to the one used to display visual field defects measured with automated perimetry. Procedures are described for directly comparing these mfVEP probability plots to the probability plots for Humphrey visual fields (HVFs). The interocular mfVEP test described in will not be sensitive to bilateral damage. describes a test based upon monocular mfVEPs. The statistical basis of the monocular mfVEP test is relatively complex (see ). In any case, under many conditions the interocular test will be more sensitive and this is discussed in. summarizes a number of clinical applications of the mfVEP and concludes that the mfVEP has a place in the clinical management of glaucoma. To understand the limitations of the mfVEP, a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) approach is described in. Using the techniques described in, the relationship between the amplitude of the mfVEP and the sensitivity loss of the HVF is discussed in. The evidence supports a simple model in which the amplitude of the signal portion, but not the noise portion, of the mfVEP response is proportional to HVF loss where HVF loss is expressed in linear, not dB, units. It is hypothesized that both the signal in the mfVEP, and the sensitivity of the HVF, are linearly related to ganglion cell loss. A theoretical approach, developed in, allows a direct comparison of the efficacy of the mfVEP and HVF in detecting glaucomatous damage. In short, when the mfVEP has a large SNR it will often be superior to the HVF in detecting damage. On the other hand, when the mfVEP has a small SNR, the HVF will probably be superior. summarizes the relative advantages of the HVF and the mfVEP. In summary, the mfVEP does have a place in the clinical management of glaucoma, although it is not likely to replace static automated achromatic perimetry in the near future. However, this is an evolving technology and the future will undoubtedly see major improvements in the mfVEP technique.

Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological↗
PubMed2003

The multifocal electroretinogram.

The multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) technique allows local ERG responses to be recorded simultaneously from many regions of the retina. As in the case of the full-field ERG, the ganglion cells contribute relatively little to the response, which originates largely from the outer retina. The mfERG is particularly valuable in cases in which the fundus appears normal, and it is difficult to distinguish between diseases of the outer retina and diseases of the ganglion cells and/or optic nerve. The mfERG can also help to differentiate among outer retinal diseases, to follow the progression of retinal diseases, and, with the addition of the mfVEP, to differentiate between organic and nonorganic causes of visual loss. However, because the difficulties encountered in recording and analyzing mfERG responses are greater than those involved in full-field ERG testing, mfERG testing is best left to centers with an electrophysiologist familiar with the mfERG test. Although this technique is relatively new and standards are still being developed, centers capable of recording reliable mfERG responses can be found in hundreds of locations around the world.

Electroretinography↗
PubMed2003

The multifocal visual evoked potential.

With the multifocal technique, visual evoked potentials (VEPs) can be recorded simultaneously from many regions of the visual field. For the multifocal VEP (mfVEP), the patient views a display that typically contains 60 sectors, each with a checkerboard pattern. The display covers about the same retinal area as the 24-2 Humphrey visual field (HVF). However, due to the scaling of the sectors of the mfVEP display, the fields are sampled differently by the mfVEP and HVF. To assess local defects in the visual field, the mfVEP responses must be compared with normal controls. These comparisons require relatively sophisticated analyses and software. Whereas the mfVEP can be recorded relatively easily with the same equipment used to record multifocal electroretinograms (mfERGs), the software needed to perform the analysis is not yet widely available. The mfVEP is valuable for ruling out non-organic visual loss, diagnosing and following patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis, evaluating patients with unreliable or questionable HVFs, and following disease progression. When combined with the mfERG, diseases of the outer retina (before the retinal ganglion cells) can be distinguished from diseases of the ganglion cells and/or optic nerve. The difficulties encountered in recording and analyzing mfVEP responses are greater than those involved in full-field VEP testing. Thus, in its current form, the mfVEP is best recorded and interpreted by ophthalmologists and electrophysiologists experienced with the technique. However, this technique is developing rapidly; advances in commercial hardware and software are expected in the near future.

Electroretinography↗
PubMed2003

Objective measurement of visual function in glaucoma.

Of the objective (electrophysiological), functional tests of glaucomatous damage, three hold the most promise. Some evidence suggests that the pattern electroretinogram, the photopic negative response of the electroretinogram, and the multifocal visual-evoked potential can detect early glaucomatous damage, damage that may be missed on static automated achromatic perimetry. However, in their current forms, these tests can supplement, but cannot replace, static automated achromatic perimetry. Further, the multifocal visual-evoked potential is the only one of these tests that supplies topographic information about local damage. In addition, we still lack a complete understanding of the relation between these tests and the underlying damage to ganglion cells. In this context, it has recently been suggested that the signal in the multifocal visual-evoked potential response may be linearly related to the loss of ganglion cells. Finally, more information is needed about these tests from longitudinal or prospective studies.

Electroretinography↗
PubMed2003

Detecting glaucomatous damage with multifocal visual evoked potentials: how can a monocular test work?

PURPOSE: To understand and improve the detection of glaucomatous damage with multifocal visual evoked potentials (mfVEP) obtained from single eyes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Monocular mfVEP recordings were obtained from both eyes of 30 individuals with no known visual abnormalities. The 44.5 degrees -diameter display contained 60 sectors. Probability plots, analogous to the total deviation probability plot of the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer, were created based on tests that compared each eye (monocular test), or the ratio of the responses from the 2 eyes (interocular test), to group norms. RESULTS: For the monocular test, the number of points exceeding the 5% confidence level was not distributed randomly among individuals or among field locations within an individual. Individuals with small signals (i.e., low signal-to-noise ratios [SNR]) showed too many "abnormal" points, while those with relatively large SNR values showed too few. Reasonably good specificity was obtained by defining an abnormality in terms of a cluster of significant points in the mfVEP probability plot. For the interocular test, the results were close to those expected by chance. CONCLUSIONS: Both monocular and interocular tests will be of value when testing glaucoma patients with the mfVEP technique. The interocular test is a more sensitive indicator of glaucomatous damage when a region when healthy has a large signal (SNR) and damage is largely unilateral, whereas the monocular test will be a more sensitive test when a region when healthy has a small signal (SNR). However, the statistics underlying monocular comparisons of mfVEPs are not simple. To obtain high specificity, criteria based on clusters of points need to be used and norms obtained for every laboratory.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Repeat reliability of the multifocal visual evoked potential in normal and glaucomatous eyes.

PURPOSE: To investigate the repeat reliability of the multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifteen subjects with no known abnormalities of the visual system and 10 patients with glaucoma participated in the study. Monocular mfVEPs were recorded on two separate days, using a 60-sector, pattern-reversal dart board array. Within a single session, two 7-minute. recordings were obtained for each eye. The amplitude of each mfVEP response was obtained using a root mean square measure (RMS). An mfVEP ratio [10*log (RMS day 1 / RMS day 2)] provided a measure of the reproducibility of an individual response. The same calculations were performed for Run 1 compared with Run 2 within a day and Run 1 (Run 2) compared with Run 1 (Run 2) across days. RESULTS: For all 1800 mfVEP responses (60 sectors x 15 subjects x 2 eyes), the correlation between the amplitude on day 2 and the amplitude on day 1 was good (r = 0.85). The mean standard deviation (SD) of the 60 mfVEP ratios for the individual subjects was 1.63 dB for the 14-minute records (the combination of the two 7-minute recordings). On average for the 7-minute records, the mean SD across days was 1.77 dB while the mean SD within a day was 1.53 dB. The correlation within a day (r = 0.87) also was slightly larger than across days (r = 0.80). The mean SD decreased as the RMS amplitude increased. The patients' mean SD was 1.75 dB with r equal to 0.82. CONCLUSIONS: The repeat reliability of the mfVEP was good (approximately 1.6dB); in fact, it was better than that typically obtained with static automated perimetry (approximately 2.7dB). Repeat testing on separate days added surprisingly little to the variability seen with repeat testing within the same session.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2003

Conventional pattern-reversal VEPs are not equivalent to summed multifocal VEPs.

PURPOSE: To compare conventional pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials (cVEPs) with multifocal VEPs (mfVEPs). METHODS: mfVEPs and cVEPs were recorded during the same session in 12 normal subjects with an active electrode at Oz referenced to the inion (Oz-In) or to a midfrontal position, Fz (Oz-Fz). The mfVEP stimulus, a 60-sector dartboard, had a mean luminance of 100 cd/m(2) and a diameter of 42.2 degrees. The cVEP checkerboard stimulus subtended 21 degrees, had a mean luminance of 75 cd/m(2) and a contrast of 90%. Transient responses (2.5 Hz) were recorded for check sizes ranging from 12 to 50 minutes of arc (minarc). White cardboard masks were used to isolate upper and lower hemifields, within various field windows, for comparison with corresponding parts of the mfVEP. In a second experiment, VEPs were obtained using slowed m-sequences (8 and 16 video frames per m-step), as well as square-wave periodic reversals (2.4 Hz), for both the scaled dartboard display and an unscaled checkerboard display (check size of 50 minarc). RESULTS: The mfVEPs to fast m-sequence stimulation showed a strong polarity reversal between waveforms from the upper versus the lower hemifield. The cVEPs had larger amplitudes (approximately 3x) and longer implicit times (approximately 15-20 ms) and did not show the polarity reversal. Amplitude asymmetry between upper and lower hemifields was larger for cVEPs than for mfVEPs. As the stimulation rate was slowed, response amplitudes and implicit times of the major features increased, the upper versus lower polarity reversal was generally lost, and asymmetry of hemifield amplitudes grew. The same pattern of results was observed for scaled and unscaled spatial displays and for Oz-Fz and Oz-In signal derivations. CONCLUSIONS: Full-field cVEPs cannot be simply related to the sum of mfVEPs when each are recorded under their typical conditions. The stimulation rate has the largest influence on the differences between the two response types. The findings suggest that contributions from extrastriate sources are greater with the cVEP paradigm or the slowed mfVEP sequence than with the standard mfVEP paradigm.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Cone and rod ERG phototransduction parameters in retinitis pigmentosa.

PURPOSE: To analyze cone and rod phototransduction parameters from ERG a-waves in patients with RP and to determine the relationships among these parameters, age, and mode of inheritance. METHODS: Sets of four white flashes (3.2-4.4 log scotopic troland [scot td-s]) were presented in the dark. The same stimuli were later presented against a rod-saturating background and the generated cone a-waves were subtracted from the dark-adapted responses to produce rod-only a-waves. The rod-only and cone a-waves were fit with computational models. RESULTS: Of 418 consecutive patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP), cone a-waves were quantifiable in 136 (33%), whereas rod a-waves were quantifiable in 125 (30%). Cone R(max) (maximum response) and cone S (sensitivity) parameters were significantly below normal in all RP subgroups. Cone R(max) was lower in XlRP than in other forms of inheritance (P < 0.05). Cone S was abnormal in 77.9% of all patients with RP and in 96.8% of those with XlRP. More than 95% of the rod R(max) values were abnormal, whereas rod S was abnormal in 61.6% of these patients. CONCLUSIONS: The efficiency of cone phototransduction appears to be affected in all forms of RP, even in some patients in whom the sensitivity of rod phototransduction is normal. In this cross-sectional sample, there was no evidence that transduction efficiency decreased with increasing age of the patient. The X-linked mode of inheritance is associated with greater abnormalities in cone and rod photoreceptor function at a younger age compared with the other modes of inheritance.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2003

Regional variations in local contributions to the primate photopic flash ERG: revealed using the slow-sequence mfERG.

PURPOSE: To determine the variations with eccentricity of the primate photopic ERG and to separate contributions by different retinal cells by using intravitreal pharmacologic agents. METHODS: Slow-sequence multifocal (mf)ERGs were obtained from 19 anesthetized adult rhesus monkeys and 5 normal human subjects. Recordings in monkeys were obtained before and after injections of tetrodotoxin citrate (TTX) to block sodium-dependent spiking; TTX+N-methyl-D-aspartic acid (NMDA)+picrotoxin (PTX) or gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) to block all inner retinal activity; L-2 amino-4-phosphonobutyric acid (APB) to block the On-pathway; and cis-2, 3 piperidine dicarboxylic acid (PDA) to block the Off-pathway and the otherwise unblocked inner retinal activity. The stimulus consisted of 103 equal-sized hexagons within 17 degrees of the fovea; every 200 ms (15 frames), each hexagon had a 50% chance of remaining at 20 cd/m(2) or increasing briefly to 4.7 cd-s/m(2). Oscillatory potentials (OPs; 90-300 Hz) were extracted. RESULTS: The slow-sequence mfERG summed over the stimulated area looked similar to a standard photopic, full-field ERG, with a- and b-waves and OPs. OPs in the foveal and temporal retina were larger than in the nasal retina. This nasotemporal asymmetry was removed by TTX, and the OPs were eliminated, either by blocking inner retina activity or by blocking the On-pathway. The summed mfERG waveform, including OPs, was shaped mainly by the more peripheral retinal regions. The foveal b-wave peak occurred about 5 to 6 ms later than in the periphery, with the depolarizing peak of the On-pathway/bipolar contribution occurring earlier than the depolarizing peak of the Off contribution at all eccentricities. The a-wave was composed of a small photoreceptor contribution and postreceptoral portion originating from hyperpolarizing neurons. CONCLUSIONS: The variations in the primate photopic ERG with eccentricity are due to spike-driven oscillatory activity that is more prominent in central and temporal retina than in nasal retina and to the slower timing of all responses in the central, compared with the peripheral, retina. The full-field, photopic ERG most closely resembles the mfERG responses to stimulation of peripheral regions.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2002

Visual field defects and multifocal visual evoked potentials: evidence of a linear relationship.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between spatially localized multifocal visual evoked potentials (mfVEPs) and Humphrey visual fields (HVFs) in patients with unilateral field defects. METHODS: Humphrey visual fields and mfVEPs were obtained from 20 patients with unilateral field losses due to either ischemic optic neuropathy or glaucoma. Monocular mfVEPs were obtained for each eye. The amplitude of the mfVEP responses was calculated using root-mean-square and signal-noise ratio measures. Estimates of the HVF loss in the same regions of the field used for the mfVEP were obtained by interpolating the 24-2 HVF data. RESULTS: Monocular mfVEP amplitude decreased with HVF loss, although small mfVEP signals were not uniquely associated with poor fields. On average, the monocular mfVEP was indistinguishable from noise for field losses between -5 and -10 dB, and good monocular mfVEP amplitudes were never associated with extensive visual field loss. The interocular ratio of the mfVEP amplitudes correlated well with the difference between the HVF values of the 2 eyes, and this correlation improved with increased signal-noise ratio. CONCLUSIONS: The monocular and interocular results were consistent with a linear relationship between the amplitude of the signal portion of the mfVEP response and linear HVF loss. One way to produce this relationship would be if both the signal in the mfVEP and linear HVF loss were linearly related to the percentage of local ganglion cells lost. The clinical limitations of the mfVEP technique can be understood by taking the signal-noise ratio, and the linear model proposed herein, into consideration.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Quantitative electroretinogram measures of phototransduction in cone and rod photoreceptors: normal aging, progression with disease, and test-retest variability.

OBJECTIVES: To determine (1) reference values for cone and rod phototransduction variables derived from the a-wave of the electroretinogram, (2) their dependence on age, (3) the progression in cone and rod variables in patients with X-linked retinitis pigmentosa (XLRP), and (4) the test-retest variability in these a-wave measures compared with the variability in cone and rod b-wave measures. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred control subjects aged 5 to 75 years and 24 patients with XLRP aged 5 to 38 years. METHODS: High-intensity stimuli were used to elicit electroretinograms in the dark and in the presence of a rod-saturating background. Computer averaging and computer subtraction of cone components from mixed rod-cone responses were used to derive rod-only and cone a-waves. Rod and cone phototransduction variables were derived by computer fitting physiologically based computational models to the leading edges of a-wave ensembles. RESULTS: Phototransduction efficiency, as indexed by the sensitivity variable (S), decreased with age for cone and rod-only responses, whereas maximum cone and rod photoresponses (Rm(P3)) remained constant. In patients with XLRP tested annually for 4 years, Rm(P3) for rods and, to a lesser extent, cones declined with disease progression, whereas S remained stable. The test-retest variability in the a-wave Rm(P3) is lower than previously reported measures of the variability in b-wave peak-to-peak amplitude. CONCLUSION: The leading edge of the a-wave of the electroretinogram can be related to rod and cone phototransduction variables through quantitative models. Rm(P3), rather than S, should be the outcome measure of choice when using the a-wave to follow photoreceptor function in prospective studies and treatment trials.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2002

A method for comparing psychophysical and multifocal electroretinographic increment thresholds.

The multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) has been commonly used as a method for obtaining objective visual fields. Although qualitative comparisons have been good, quantitative comparisons between the results from mfERG and the results from Humphrey Visual Field Analyser (HVFA) have found variable degrees of agreement depending upon the mfERG response parameter examined and/or the disease studied. Lack of agreement may be due to differences in methodology, differences in the sites of response generation, and/or differences derived from comparing suprathreshold versus threshold responses. In addition, the two procedures are performed at different levels of adaptation. We developed an approach for matching stimulus parameters and compared mfERG and psychophysical thresholds to assess the effects of technique and level of adaptation on the two responses. Psychophysical and mfERG thresholds were obtained as a function of the adaptation level (1.5-4.0 log td) and retinal location. The derived increment threshold-versus-intensity functions for both measures were fitted using the equation logT=logT(0)+log((A+A(0))/A(0))(n). We found that the values of A(0) for the mfERG data were one log unit higher than those for the psychophysical data. In addition, the value of the slope (n) for the mfERG data was shallower (0.8) than that of the psychophysical data (1.0). Predictions were made about comparisons of HVFA threshold and mfERG amplitude data in patients with retinal disease based upon a two-site model of adaptation. The data for some groups of patients could be best-fitted with a model of a disease acting at a site distal to all gain changes, whereas data from other patients were best fitted with a model of a disease acting at a site proximal to all retinal gain. The relationship between the Humphrey visual field threshold losses and mfERG amplitude reductions depends upon the site and mechanism of a particular disease process and the model of retinal gain assumed. In no case is a one-to-one relationship between the losses in the two measures predicted.

Adaptation, Ocular↗