A new method of extrapolating the sweep pattern visual evoked potential acuity

Assessment of Human Visual Acuity Using Visual Evoked Potential: A Review

Visual evoked potential (VEP) has been used as an alternative method to assess visual acuity objectively, especially in non-verbal infants and adults with low intellectual abilities or malingering. By sweeping the spatial frequency of visual stimuli and recording the corresponding VEP, VEP acuity can be defined by analyzing electroencephalography (EEG) signals. This paper presents a review on the VEP-based visual acuity assessment technique, including a brief overview of the technique, the effects of the parameters of visual stimuli, and signal acquisition and analysis of the VEP acuity test, and a summary of the current clinical applications of the technique. Finally, we discuss the current problems in this research domain and potential future work, which may enable this technique to be used more widely and quickly, deepening the VEP and even electrophysiology research on the detection and diagnosis of visual function.

VEP estimation of visual acuity: a systematic review

Purpose

Visual evoked potentials (VEPs) can be used to measure visual resolution via a spatial frequency (SF) limit as an objective estimate of visual acuity. The aim of this systematic review is to collate descriptions of the VEP SF limit in humans, healthy and disordered, and to assess how accurately and precisely VEP SF limits reflect visual acuity.

Methods

The protocol methodology followed the PRISMA statement. Multiple databases were searched using “VEP” and “acuity” and associated terms, plus hand search: titles, abstracts or full text were reviewed for eligibility. Data extracted included VEP SF limits, stimulus protocols, VEP recording and analysis techniques and correspondence with behavioural acuity for normally sighted healthy adults, typically developing infants and children, healthy adults with artificially degraded vision and patients with ophthalmic or neurological conditions.

Results

A total of 155 studies are included. Commonly used stimulus, recording and analysis techniques are summarised. Average healthy adult VEP SF limits vary from 15 to 40 cpd, depend on stimulus, recording and analysis techniques and are often, but not always, poorer than behavioural acuity measured either psychophysically with an identical stimulus or with a clinical acuity test. The difference between VEP SF limit and behavioural acuity is variable and strongly dependent on the VEP stimulus and choice of acuity test. VEP SF limits mature rapidly, from 1.5 to 9 cpd by the end of the first month of life to 12–20 cpd by 8–12 months, with slower improvement to 20–40 cpd by 3–5 years. VEP SF limits are much better than behavioural thresholds in the youngest, typically developing infants. This difference lessens with age and reaches equivalence between 1 and 2 years; from around 3–5 years, behavioural acuity is better than the VEP SF limit, as for adults. Healthy, artificially blurred adults had slightly better behavioural acuity than VEP SF limits across a wide range of acuities, while adults with heterogeneous ophthalmic or neurological pathologies causing reduced acuity showed a much wider and less consistent relationship. For refractive error, ocular media opacity or pathology primarily affecting the retina, VEP SF limits and behavioural acuity had a fairly consistent relationship across a wide range of acuity. This relationship was much less consistent or close for primarily macular, optic nerve or neurological conditions such as amblyopia. VEP SF limits were almost always normal in patients with non-organic visual acuity loss.

Conclusions

The VEP SF limit has great utility as an objective acuity estimator, especially in pre-verbal children or patients of any age with motor or learning impairments which prevent reliable measurement of behavioural acuity. Its diagnostic power depends heavily on adequate, age-stratified, reference data, age-stratified empirical calibration with behavioural acuity, and interpretation in the light of other electrophysiological and clinical findings. Future developments could encompass faster, more objective and robust techniques such as real-time, adaptive control.

Registration

International prospective register of systematic reviews PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/), registration number CRD42018085666.

Comparison of the performance of six stimulus paradigms in visual acuity assessment based on steady-state visual evoked potentials

PURPOSE

There are several stimulus paradigms used in objective visual acuity assessment based on steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs). The aim of this study was to explore the difference and performance of common used six stimulus paradigms (reverse vertical sinusoidal gratings, reverse horizontal sinusoidal gratings, reverse vertical square-wave gratings, brief-onset vertical sinusoidal gratings, reversal checkerboards and oscillating expansion-contraction concentric-rings) of SSVEP acuity assessment.

METHODS

We tested subjective visual acuity both by tumbling E and Freiburg Visual Acuity and Contrast Test (FrACT) in 11 subjects. SSVEPs were induced by 11 spatial frequencies for each paradigm, and then a threshold determination criterion was used to define the objective SSVEP visual acuity.

RESULTS

After SSVEP signal analysis, we found there was difference in SSVEP response of harmonic components and no difference in sensitive electrode placement for the six paradigms. We selected six electrodes (PO3, POz, PO4, O1, Oz and O2) as the sensitive electrodes to use in data processing for each paradigm. The results showed that except for brief-onset vertical sinusoidal gratings, the correlation and agreement between objective SSVEP and subjective FrACT acuity were all quite good, demonstrating good performance in acuity detection for the rest five paradigms.

CONCLUSION

Except for brief-onset vertical sinusoidal gratings, all the five stimulus paradigms of reverse vertical sinusoidal gratings, reverse horizontal sinusoidal gratings, reverse vertical square-wave gratings, reversal checkerboards and oscillating expansion-contraction concentric-rings performed quite well in objective SSVEP visual acuity assessment.

Objective and quantitative assessment of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity based on steady-state motion visual evoked potentials using concentric-ring paradigm

PURPOSE

The traditional assessment of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity depends more on subjective judgments. Steady-state motion visual evoked potentials (SSMVEPs) can provide an objective and quantitative method to evaluate visual functions such as visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. Here, we explored the possibility of objective SSMVEP visual acuity and contrast sensitivity testing, and compared its performance with that of psychophysical methods.

METHODS

In this study, we designed a specific concentric ring with oscillating expansion and contraction SSMVEP paradigm to assess visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. By changing the parameters of the paradigm, the SSMVEP paradigm with different contrasts and spatial frequencies corresponding to different visual acuity and contrast sensitivity was designed. Moreover, we proposed a threshold determination criterion to define the corresponding objective SSMVEP visual acuity and contrast sensitivity.

RESULTS

We tested visual acuity and contrast sensitivity of sixteen healthy adults utilizing this paradigm with an electroencephalography system. Our data suggested that there was no significant difference between objective visual acuity and contrast sensitivity measurements based on the SSMVEPs and subjective psychophysical ones.

CONCLUSION

Our study proved that SSMVEPs can be an objective and quantitative method to measure visual acuity and contrast sensitivity.

Objective assessment of visual acuity: a refined model for analyzing the sweep VEP

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to develop a simple and reliable method for the objective assessment of visual acuity by optimizing the stimulus used in commercially available systems and by improving the methods of evaluation using a nonlinear function, the modified Ricker model.

METHODS

Subjective visual acuity in the normal subjects was measured with Snellen targets, best-corrected, and in some cases also uncorrected and with plus lenses (+ 1 D, + 2 D, + 3 D). In patients, subjective visual acuity was measured best-corrected using the Freiburg Visual Acuity Test. Sweep VEP recordings to 11 spatial frequencies, with check sizes in logarithmically equidistant steps (0.6, 0.9, 1.4, 2.1, 3.3, 4.9, 7.3, 10.4, 18.2, 24.4, and 36.5 cpd), were obtained from 56 healthy subjects aged between 17 and 69 years (mean 42.5 ± 15.3 SD years) and 20 patients with diseases of the lens (n = 6), retina (n = 8) or optic nerve (n = 6). The results were fit by a multiple linear regression (2nd-order polynomial) or a nonlinear regression (modified Ricker model) and parameters compared (limiting spatial frequency (sf_limiting) and the spatial frequency of the vertex (sf_vertex) of the parabola for the 2nd-order polynomial fitting, and the maximal spatial frequency (sf_max), and the spatial frequency where the amplitude is 2 dB higher than the level of noise (sf_threshold) for the modified Ricker model.

RESULTS

Recording with 11 spatial frequencies allows a more accurate determination of acuities above 1.0 logMAR. Tuning curves fitted to the results show that compared to the normal 2nd-order polynomial analysis, the modified Ricker model is able to describe closely the amplitudes of the sweep VEP in relation to the spatial frequencies of the presented checkerboards. In patients with a visual acuity better than about 0.5 (decimal), the predicted acuities based on the different parameters show a good match of the predicted visual acuities based on the models established in healthy volunteers to the subjective visual acuities. However, for lower visual acuities, both models tend to overestimate the visual acuity (up to ~ 0.4 logMAR), especially in patients suffering from AMD.

CONCLUSIONS

Both models, the 2nd-order polynomial and the modified Ricker model performed equally well in the prediction of the visual acuity based on the amplitudes recorded using the sweep VEP. However, the modified Ricker model does not require the exclusion of data points from the fit, as necessary when fitting the 2nd-order polynomial model making it more reliable and robust against outliers, and, in addition, provides a measure for the noise of the recorded results.

Contribution of sVEP visual acuity testing in comparison with subjective visual acuity

AIMS

Visual acuity determination is an important task in ophthalmology and optometry practices. Visual acuity can be examined objectively or subjectively. The objective examination method, sVEP, allows for quick objective measurements of patient's visual acuity. Previous studies have not demonstrated the repeatability of this objective sVEP method. This study aims to evaluate the sVEP method and compare it to a subjective method.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The sample was divided into two groups. For the first group, visual acuity was measured with sVEP and Snellen methods on only one patient twelve times. In the second group, visual acuity was measured twice with sVEP followed twice with the Snellen method with Landolt's rings and logMAR modification on 32 non-pathological patients. Results showed significant differences between average values of visual acuity obtained with both methods (sVEP and Snellen) in both samples (T-test, P < 0.01; Wilcoxon test, P = 0.02 in second group). In the second group, significant correlations between repeated sVEP measurements (Spearman test, P < 0.05, r = 0.69) were found but no significant correlation between average sVEP measurement and average Snellen measurement (Spearman test, P > 0.05, r = 0.15) was found.

CONCLUSION

Objective measurement of visual acuity with sVEP is a valid and reliable method, but is recommended only when it is not possible to use a subjective method for measuring visual acuity, e.g. children, patients with mental retardation or simulating/dissimulating patients.

Visual evoked potential-based acuity assessment: overestimation in amblyopia

BACKGROUND/AIMS

When visual acuity (VA) is assessed with spatially repetitive stimuli (e.g., gratings) in amblyopes, VA can be markedly overestimated. We evaluated to what extent this also applies to VEP-based objective acuity assessment, which typically uses gratings or checkerboards.

METHODS

Seventeen subjects with amblyopia (anisometropic and strabismic) participated in the study; decimal VA range of their amblyopic eye covered 0.03-1.0 (1.5-0.0 logMAR). Using the Freiburg Acuity VEP (FrAVEP) method, checkerboard stimuli with six check sizes covering 0.02°-0.4° were presented in brief-onset mode (40 ms on, 93 ms off) at 7.5 Hz. All VEPs were recorded with a Laplacian montage. Fourier analysis yielded the amplitude and significance at the stimulus frequency. Psychophysical VA was assessed with the Landolt-C-based automated Freiburg Visual Acuity Test (FrACT).

RESULTS

Test-retest limits of agreement for both FrACT and FrAVEP were ±0.20 logMAR. In all but two dominant eyes and high-acuity amblyopic eyes (VA<0.3 logMAR), FrACT and FrAVEP agreed within the expected limits of ±0.3 logMAR. However, the VEP-based acuity procedure overestimated single Landolt-C acuity by more than 0.3 logMAR in 9 of 17 (53%) of the amblyopic eyes, up to 1 logMAR. While all subjects had a psychophysical acuity difference>0.2 logMAR between the dominant and amblyopic eye, only three of them showed such difference with the FrAVEP.

CONCLUSION

Both measurements of visual acuity with the VEP and FrACT were highly reproducible. However, as expected, in amblyopia, acuity can be markedly overestimated using the VEP. We attribute this to the use of repetitive stimulus patterns (checkerboards), which also lead to overestimation in psychophysical measures. The VEP-based objective assessment never underestimated visual acuity, but needs to be interpreted with appropriate caution in amblyopia.

Sweep pattern visual evoked potential acuity in children during their periods of visual development

PURPOSE

To study the clinical usage of sweep pattern visual evoked potential (SPVEP) acuity in children's visual development periods and compare the amplitude-spatial frequency (A-SP) function regression method with the amplitude-logarithm of the visual angle (A-logVA) function regression method in evaluating the SPVEP acuity of children, especially those who have poor visual acuities.

METHODS

Twenty-six eyes of 26 amblyopic children (ages ranged from 3 to 12 years; mean age±standard deviation 6.69±1.74 years) and 31 eyes of normal children whose ages were matched with the amblyopic group were involved in this study. SPVEP acuity was recorded with GT-2000 NV (Guote Medical Apparatus Ltd., China) using sinusoidally modulated horizontal gratings with 10 different spatial frequencies from 0.99 to 12.89 cycles per degree to stimulate the retina. The averaging responses were displayed with the discrete Fourier transformation method. SPVEP acuity was assessed by both the A-SP function regression method and the A-logVA function regression method. The logarithm of minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) chart was used to obtain logMAR visual acuity.

RESULTS

In the normal group, logMAR acuity calculated by both the A-SP and A-logVA function regression methods had a significant correlation with SPVEP acuity. The average value of SPVEP acuity (by A-logVA) was closer to logMAR acuity. The difference of mean values between logMAR acuity and SPVEP acuity was significant in both regression methods. In the amblyopic group, it was SPVEP acuity (by A-logVA) that had a significant correlation with logMAR acuity, whereas the result was not significant when calculated by the A-SP function regression method (p=0.515). The average value of SPVEP acuity (A-SP) was closer to logMAR acuity. The difference of mean values between logMAR acuity and SPVEP acuity (A-logVA) was significant; however, when compared with SPVEP acuity (A-SP), it was not significant (p=0.174). In addition, SPVEP acuity may be overestimated or underestimated when it is compared with different logMAR visual acuities.

CONCLUSION

SPVEP could be used to evaluate the visual acuity for normal children or those with poor visual acuity. Moreover, the A-logVA function regression method was more accurate than the A-SP function regression method in evaluating SPVEP acuity.