Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

MfERG responses to long-duration white stimuli in glaucoma patients

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The intent of our study was to evaluate whether the response to a long-duration white stimulus in the multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) is sufficiently sensitive to detect early retinal dysfunction in glaucoma. On–off mfERGs were recorded from 15 NTG and 15 HTG patients and compared with 14 control subjects. Recording parameters were the following: LED stimulus screen (RETIscan™), 100-ms stimulus duration, 200-ms stimulus interval, 11-min total recording time, stimulus matrix of 61 elements, frame rate: 70 Hz, Lmax: 180 cd/m2, Lmin: 0 cd/m2, and filter setting: 1–200 Hz. The second negative response following stimulus onset (N2-on), as well as following stimulus offset (N2-off), was analyzed as an overall response and in quadrants, as well as in 4 small central and four adjoining peripheral areas per quadrant. The latency of the N2-on was significantly delayed in HTG in all response averages tested, while in NTG this was only seen in the overall response and in the small central response averages (P < 0.05). The most sensitive measure in HTG was the latency of the N2-on of the small peripheral response average of the superior temporal quadrant with an area under the ROC curve of 0.881. For NTG, the most representative measure was the latency of the N2-on of the small central response average of the inferior nasal quadrant with an area under the ROC curve of 0.793. Our results showed that in stimulation with long-duration flashes, the second negative response following the on response, representative of the early PhNR, is affected in glaucoma where N2-on showed a latency delay in POAG patients. The latency delay of the N2-on was more prominent for HTG than for NTG.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

HTG:

High-tension glaucoma

LED:

Light-emitting diode screen

MD:

Mean defect

NTG:

Normal-tension glaucoma

N2-on:

N2-on response

N2-off:

N2-off response

Off-response:

Response, following stimulus offset

On-response:

Response, following stimulus onset

POAG:

Primary open-angle glaucoma

PhNR:

Photopic negative response

ROC:

Receiver operating characteristic

References

  1. Kuehn MH, Fingert JH, Kwon YH (2005) Retinal ganglion cell death in glaucoma: mechanisms and neuroprotective strategies. Ophthalmol Clin North Am 18:383–395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Viswanathan S, Frishman L, Robson JG, Harwerth RS, Smith EL III (1999) The photopic negative response of the macaque electroretinogram: reduction by experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 40:1124–1136

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Viswanathan S, Frishman L, Robson JG, Walters JW (2001) The photopic negative response of the flash electroretinogram in primary open angle glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42:514–522

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Colotto A, Falsini B, Salgarello T, Iarossi G, Galan ME, Scullica L (2000) Photopic negative response of the human ERG: losses associated with glaucomatous damage. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:2205–2211

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Machida S, Gotob Y, Toba Y, Ohtaki A, Kaneko M, Kurosaka D (2008) Correlation between photopic negative response and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness and optic disc topography in glaucomatous eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49:2201–2207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Viswanathan S, Frishman LJ, Robson JG (2000) The uniform field and pattern ERG in macaques with experimental glaucoma: removal of spiking activity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:2797–2810

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Weber AJ, Kaufmann P, Hubbard WC (1998) Morphology of single ganglion cells in the glaucomatous primate retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 39:2304–2320

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Morgan JE, Uchida H, Caprioli J (2000) Retinal ganglion cell death in experimental glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 84:303–310

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rangaswamy NV, Shirato S, Kaneko M, Digby BI, Robson JG, Frishman LJ (2007) Effects of Spectral Characteristics of Ganzfeld Stimuli on the Photopic Negative Response (PhNR) of the ERG. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48:4818–4828

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sustar M, Cvenkel B, Brecelj J (2009) The effect of broadband and monochromatic stimuli on the photopic negative response of the electroretinogram in normal subjects and in open-angle glaucoma patients. Doc Ophthalmol 118:167–177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cursiefen C, Korth M, Horn FK (2001) The negative response of the flash electroretinogram in glaucoma. Doc Ophthalmol 103:1–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fortune B, Wang L, Bui BV, Cull G, Dong J, Cioffi GA (2003) Local ganglion cell contributions to the macaque electroretinogram revealed by experimental nerve fiber layer bundle defect. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:4567–4579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kondo M, Kurimoto Y, Sakai T, Koyasu T, Miyata K, Ueno S, Terasaki H (2008) Recording focal macular photopic negative response (PhNR) from monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49:3544–3550

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Machida S, Toba Y, Ohtaki A, Gotoh Y, Kaneko M, Kurosaka D (2008) Photopic negative response of focal electoretinograms in glaucomatous eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49(12):5636–5644

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hood DC, Seiple W, Holopigian K, Greenstein V (1997) A comparison of the components of the multifocal and full-field ERGs. Vis Neurosci 14:533–544

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Sutter EE, Tran D (1992) The field topography of ERG components in man—I. The photopic luminance response. Vis Res 32:433–446

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bearse MA Jr, Sutter EE (1996) Imaging localized retinal dysfunction with the multifocal electroretinogram. J Optical Soc America 13:634–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bearse MA Jr, Sutter EE, Palmowski AM (1997) New developments toward a clinical test of retinal ganglion cell function. Vision Science and its Applications, vol 1. Optical Society of America, Washington DC, pp 280–283

  19. Palmowski AM (2003) Multifocal stimulation techniques in ophthalmology-Current knowledge and perspectives. Strabismus 2:229–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Palmowski AM, Ruprecht KW (2004) Follow up in open angle glaucoma. A comparison of static perimetry and the fast stimulation mfERG. Multifocal ERG follow up in open angle glaucoma. Doc Ophthalmol 108:55–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Palmowski AM, Allgayer R, Heinemann-Vernaleken B (2000) The multifocal ERG in open angle glaucoma—a comparison of high and low contrast recordings in high- and low-tension open angle glaucoma. Doc Ophthalmol 101:35–49

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hood DC, Bearse MA Jr, Sutter EE, Viswanathan S, Frishman LJ (2001) The optic nerve head component of the monkey’s (Macaca mulatta) multifocal electroretinogram (mERG). Vision Res 41:2029–2041

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hood DC, Greenstein VC, Holopigian K, Bauer R, Firoz B, Liebmann JM, Odel JG, Ritch R (2000) An attempt to detect glaucomatous damage to the inner retina with the multifocal ERG. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:1570–1579

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Chu PH, Chan HHL, Brown B (2006) Glaucoma detection is facilitated by luminance modulation of the global flash multifocal electroretinogram. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:929–937

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Shimada Y, Bearse MA Jr, Sutter EE (2005) Multifocal electroretinograms combined with periodic flashes: direct responses and induced components. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 243:132–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sieving PA (1993) Photopic ON- and OFF-pathway abnormalities in retinal dystrophies. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 91:701–773

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Sieving PA, Murayama K, Naarendorp F (1994) Push-pull model of the primate photopic electroretinogram: a role for hyperpolarizing neurons in shaping the b-wave. Vis Neurosci 11:519–532

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kondo M, Miyake Y, Horiguchi M, Suzuki S, Tanikawa A (1998) Recording multifocal electroretinogram on and off responses in humans. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 39:574–580

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Kondo M, Miyake Y (2000) Assessment of local cone on- and off-pathway function using multifocal ERG technique. Doc Ophthalmol 100:139–154

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Curcio CA, Sloan KR, Kalina RE, Hendrickson AE (1990) Human photoreceptor topography. J Comp Neurol 292:497–523

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Hood DC, Frishman LJ, Saszik S, Viswanathan S (2002) Retinal origins of the primate multifocal ERG: implications for the human response. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43:1673–1685

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bach M, Pfeiffer N, Birkner-Binder D (1992) Pattern Electroretinogram reflects diffuse retinal damage in early glaucoma. Clin Vision Sci 7:335–340

    Google Scholar 

  33. Neppert B, Breidenbach K, Dannheim F, Hellner K (1996) Chronic open angle glaucoma: correlation of pattern electroretinography and visual field indices. Ophthalmologe 93:539–543

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Aldebasi YH, Drasdo N, Morgan JE, North RV (2004) S-cone, L + M-cone, and pattern, electroretinograms in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Vision Res 44:2749–2756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Palmowski-Wolfe AM, Allgayer R, Vernaleken B, Ruprecht KW (2006) Slow-stimulated multifocal ERG in high and normal tension glaucoma. Doc Ophthalmol 112:157–168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Araie M (1995) Pattern of visual field defects in normal-tension and high-tension glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 6:36–45

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Miyata K, Ueno S, Kondo M, Koyasu T, Terasaki H (2008) Comparison of photopic negative responses elicited by red and white xenon flashes in monkeys. Jpn J Ophthalmol 52:327–330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hood DC, Bach M, Brigell M, Keating D, Kondo M, Lyons JS, Palmowski-Wolfe AM (2008) ISCEV guidelines for clinical multifocal electroretinography (2007 edition). Doc Ophthalmol 116:1–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Andy Schötzau for his advice on statistical analysis of the data. This study was supported by a grant from Pfizer (AP, MGT) and by a Swiss government grant for foreign students in Switzerland (MGT). The data were presented in part at ARVO 2005, EVER 2006, ARVO 2008.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Basel, Mittlere Strasse 91, 4031, Basel, Switzerland

    Margarita G. Todorova & Anja M. Palmowski-Wolfe

Authors
  1. Margarita G. Todorova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anja M. Palmowski-Wolfe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margarita G. Todorova.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Todorova, M.G., Palmowski-Wolfe, A.M. MfERG responses to long-duration white stimuli in glaucoma patients. Doc Ophthalmol 122, 87–97 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-011-9263-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-011-9263-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation