PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Thomas Lindenberg

Publications and source records attributed to Thomas Lindenberg.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Diagnostic value of multifocal VEP using cross-validation and noise reduction in glaucoma research.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic value of multifocal visual evoked potentials (mf VEP) in glaucoma research is still under debate. Several previous studies proclaim it to be a useful tool for clinical applications, but according to other studies, different problems (low specificity, poor records, and interindividual variation) still retard its clinical use. The aim of the present study was to examine whether the mf VEP data obtained with the RETIscan system are appropriate for formulating a classification rule for glaucoma. METHOD: We examined and evaluated 65 eyes in 38 advanced glaucoma patients and 27 normal subjects, using four occipital gold cup electrodes (cross layout) for bipolar recording and a CRT monitor (display diameter 60 degrees, chequerboard pattern reversal, 60 segments in dartboard layout) for stimulation. In each case, eight cumulative measurements (77 s each) were made. The data of the 60 segments were cross-correlated with a RETIscan-internal VEP norm ("VEP finder"), combined in 16 sectors, and evaluated via the classification technique "double-bagging" and the Wilcoxon U-test. RESULTS: In three out of the 16 sectors, the VEP amplitudes of the patients were significantly reduced (Wilcoxon U-test). Applying double-bagging on the cross-correlated data (with VEP finder) resulted in a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 71%, and the estimated misclassification rate was 27%. For uncorrelated data (without VEP finder), the same analysis achieved a sensitivity of about 60% and a specificity of 40%. CONCLUSIONS: Estimated sensitivity and specificity suggest that by using the RETIscan system for recording, a classification of the VEP data--i.e. a separation between normal and glaucoma subjects--is possible.

Biomedical Research↗

Cyclic summation versus m-sequence technique in the multifocal ERG.

BACKGROUND: The m-sequence technique is a typical tool for the multifocal ERG. The use of LEDs instead of a computer monitor enables a new technique that merits closer investigation: The cyclic summation technique. The aim of this study was to compare the two methods. METHODS: Six normal right eyes were examined with the RETIscan system using DTL electrodes. With an LED array (display diameter 52 degrees, 103 segments, 1 foveal + 102 arranged in six concentric rings) we studied: (1). first order kernels (m-sequence); (2). 30-Hz flicker responses (m-sequence); (3). 30-Hz flicker responses (cyclic summation). The three methods were tested with a pattern of concentric rings generated by selective deactivation of LEDs (the central LED and rings 2, 4 and 6; rings 1, 3 and 5 remained active). In each case six cumulative measurements (40 s each) were made and stored separately. To determine the signal-to-noise ratio, the average mf ERG response to all active LEDs was divided by the average response to the inactive ones. RESULTS: 1. Using cyclic summation the signal-to-noise ratio exceeds the signal-to-noise ratio of both m-sequence-controlled stimuli about twofold. This implies also better spatial resolution with the cyclic summation technique 2. Since the signal-to-noise ratio increases faster with the cyclic summation technique than with the m-sequence technique, the gain of time in mf ERG can reach 80%. CONCLUSION: As far as the signal-to-noise ratio and measuring time is concerned, the cyclic summation technique outmatches the m-sequence technique in mf ERG.

Adult↗