Relationship between stimulus size and different components of the electroretinogram (ERG) elicited by flashed stimuli
- PDF / 8,934,935 Bytes
- 19 Pages / 547.087 x 737.008 pts Page_size
- 76 Downloads / 159 Views
(0123456789().,-volV) ( 01234567 89().,-volV)
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
Relationship between stimulus size and different components of the electroretinogram (ERG) elicited by flashed stimuli Mathias G. Nittmann . Avinash J. Aher . Jan Kremers
. Radouil Tzekov
Received: 21 April 2020 / Accepted: 1 October 2020 Ó Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Purpose To investigate how light stimulus conditions of varying spatial sizes affect components of the flash and long-flash electroretinogram (ERG) in normal subjects. Method Three stimulus conditions were generated by a Ganzfeld stimulator: a white flash on white background (WoW), a red flash on a blue background (RoB) and an L?M-cone isolating on–off (long flash) stimulus (Cone Iso). ERGs were recorded from six Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-020-09797-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
subjects (5 M, 1 F) with DTL electrodes to full-field (FF), 70°, 60°, 50°, 40°, 30° and 20° diameter circular stimuli. Amplitudes and peak times for a-, b-, d- and i-wave, and PhNR were examined. PhNR amplitudes were estimated in two different ways: from baseline (fB) and from preceding b-wave peak (fP). Results With decreasing stimulus size, amplitudes for all ERG waveform components attenuated and peak times increased, although the effect varied across different components. An exponential fit described the relationship between amplitudes and size of stimulated retinal area well for most components and conditions (R2= 0.75-0.99), except for PhNR(fB) (R2= - 0.16–0.88). For peak times, an exponential
M. G. Nittmann R. Tzekov Department of Ophthalmology, University of South Florida, 13330 USF Laurel Dr, Tampa, FL 33612, USA
R. Tzekov Department of Medical Engineering, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, ENG 030, Tampa, FL 33620, USA
A. J. Aher J. Kremers Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Erlangen, Schwabachanlage 6, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
R. Tzekov James A Haley Veterans’ Hospital, 13000 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., Tampa, FL 33612, USA
J. Kremers Department of Anatomy II, University of ErlangenNu¨rnberg, Universita¨tsstr. 19, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
R. Tzekov The Roskamp Institute, 2040 Whitfield Ave, Sarasota, FL 34243, USA
J. Kremers School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of Bradford, Richmond Rd, Bradford, West Yorkshire BD7 1DP, UK
R. Tzekov (&) USF Eye Institute, 12901 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., MDC 21, Tampa, FL 33612, USA e-mail: [email protected]
123
Doc Ophthalmol
decay function also fitted the data well (R2= 0.81–0.97), except in a few cases where the exponential constant was too small and a linear regression function was applied instead (a-wave Cone Iso, b- and i-wave WoW). The exponential constants for RoB amplitudes (b-wave, PhNR(fB), PhNR(fP)) were larger compared to their counterparts under WoW (p \ 0.05), while there was no difference between the constants for a-wave amplitudes and p
Data Loading...
