PurposeThe 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.MethodsTen 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionsThe 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.
[1]
Comparison of Snellen acuity and objective assessment using the spatial frequency sweep PVER
,
1997,
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.
[2]
A Kriss,et al.
Visual acuity in unilateral cataract.
,
1996,
The British journal of ophthalmology.
[3]
Spatial frequency sweep pattern reversal VER acuity vs Snellen visual acuity: Effect of optical defocus
,
1996,
Vision Research.
[4]
I. Gottlob,et al.
PREDICTING OPTOTYPE VISUAL ACUITY BY SWEPT SPATIAL VISUAL-EVOKED POTENTIALS
,
1993
.
[5]
A. Norcia,et al.
The development of monocular and binocular VEP acuity
,
1989,
Vision Research.
[6]
J V Odom,et al.
Visual acuity measurements by swept spatial frequency visual-evoked-cortical potentials (VECPs): clinical application in children with various visual disorders.
,
1990,
Journal of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus.
[7]
E. Birch,et al.
Visual Acuity and the Essentiality of Docosahexaenoic Acid and Arachidonic Acid in the Diet of Term Infants
,
1998,
Pediatric Research.
[8]
A. Norcia,et al.
Spatial frequency sweep VEP: Visual acuity during the first year of life
,
1985,
Vision Research.
[9]
L. Hainline,et al.
Comparison of Measures of Visual Acuity in Infants: Teller Acuity Cards and Sweep Visual Evoked Potentials
,
1997,
Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.
[10]
Comparison of preferential looking acuity and pattern reversal visual evoked response acuity in pediatric patients
,
1997,
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.
[11]
A. Herbert,et al.
Stimulus duration, neural adaptation, and sweep visual evoked potential acuity estimates.
,
1998,
Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[12]
A. Norcia,et al.
Visual acuity development in normal and abnormal preterm human infants.
,
1987,
Journal of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus.
[13]
C W Tyler,et al.
Infant VEP acuity measurements: analysis of individual differences and measurement error.
,
1985,
Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.
[14]
T. Hirose,et al.
Snellen visual acuity versus pattern reversal visual-evoked response acuity in clinical applications.
,
1994,
Ophthalmic research.
[15]
A Arditi,et al.
On the statistical reliability of letter-chart visual acuity measurements.
,
1993,
Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.