ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2022
Fullfield and extrafoveal visual evoked potentials in healthy eyes: reference data for a curved OLED display.
Article in Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physiological determinants of cortical P100 responses in pattern visual evoked potentials: a scoping review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Review
- True pattern-reversal LED stimulator and its comparison to LCD and CRT displays: visual evoked potential study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeVisual evoked potentials (VEP) present an important diagnostic tool in various ophthalmologic and neurologic diseases. Quantitative response data varied among patients but are also dependent on the recording and stimulating equipment. We established VEP reference values for our setting which was recently modified by using a curved OLED display as visual stimulator. Distinction is made between fullfield (FF) and extrafoveal (EF) conduction, and the effect of sex, age and lens status was determined.
methodsThis prospective cross-sectional study included 162 healthy eyes of 162 test persons older than 10 years. A fullfield pattern-reversal visual evoked potential (FF-PR-VEP) with two stimulus sizes (ss) (20.4' and 1.4°) as well as an extrafoveal pattern onset-offset VEP (EF-P-ON/OFF-VEP) (ss 1.4° and 2.8°) was derived in accordance with the International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision guidelines. Amplitudes and latencies were recorded, and the mean values as well as standard deviations were calculated. Age- and sex-dependent influences and the difference between phakic and pseudophakic eyes were examined. A subanalysis of EF-P-ON/OFF-VEP and fullfield pattern onset-offset VEP (FF-P-ON/OFF-VEP) was performed. A 55-inch curved OLED display (LG55EC930V, LG Electronics Inc., Seoul, South Korea) was used as visual stimulator.
resultsMean P100 latency of the FF-PR-VEP was 103.81 ± 7.77 ms (ss 20.4') and 102.58 ± 7.26 ms (ss 1.4°), and mean C2 latency of the EF-P-ON/OFF-VEP was 102.95 ± 11.84 ms (ss 1.4°) and 113.58 ± 9.87 ms (ss 2.8°). For all stimulation settings (FF-PR-VEP, EF-P-ON/OFF-VEP), a significant effect of age with longer latencies and smaller amplitudes in older subjects and higher amplitudes in women was observed. We saw no significant difference in latency or amplitude between phakic and pseudophakic eyes and between EF-P-ON/OFF-VEP and FF-P-ON/OFF-VEP.
conclusionsA curved OLED visual stimulator is well suited to obtain VEP response curves with a reasonable interindividual variability. We found significant effects of age and gender in our responses but no effect of the lens status. EF-P-ON/OFF-VEP tends to show smaller amplitudes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.