Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Documenta Ophthalmologica 2/2014

01-10-2014 | Original Research Article

Comparison of cathode ray tube and liquid crystal display stimulators for use in multifocal VEP

Authors: Marÿke Fox, Colin Barber, David Keating, Alan Perkins

Published in: Documenta Ophthalmologica | Issue 2/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the modified signal-to-noise ratio (SNR*) of multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) responses elicited by a cathode ray tube (CRT) and liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor in normal subjects.

Methods

An LCD monitor and CRT monitor were luminance and contrast matched. Luminance stability and the effect of viewing angle on luminance and contrast was measured for both screens. The SNR* of mfVEP responses from 15 normal subjects was compared between the stimulators using repeated measures analysis of variance.

Results

The CRT monitor took 10 min from switch on to reach the desired luminance compared to 60 min for the LCD monitor. LCD luminance was sensitive to variations in ambient temperature, fluctuating by 10 cd/m−2 over approximately 20–27 °C, whereas CRT luminance was stable. Luminance variation from the centre to the edge of the CRT screen was 8 % when viewed perpendicularly and 28 % when viewed at an angle of 25°, compared to 24 and 46 %, respectively, for the LCD screen. Contrast was >94 % and varied by <3 % across both monitors for both viewing conditions. There was no significant difference in SNR* between responses elicited by the two stimulators (p = 0.76).

Conclusions

CRT and LCD stimulators elicited mfVEP responses with similar SNR* in normal subjects. This study highlighted practical issues with the use of LCD monitors as visual stimulators, particularly with regard to warm-up time, luminance stability and luminance uniformity.
Footnotes
1
\({\text{Contrast}} = \frac{{L_{\hbox{max} } - L_{\hbox{min} } }}{{L_{\hbox{max} } + L_{\hbox{min} } }} \times 100\%\). L max is the luminance of the white, or ‘on’, elements and L min the luminance of the black, or ‘off’, elements.
 
Literature
2.
go back to reference Karanjia R, Brunet DG, ten Hove MW (2009) Optimization of visual evoked potential (VEP) recording systems. Can J Neurol Sci 36(1):89–92PubMed Karanjia R, Brunet DG, ten Hove MW (2009) Optimization of visual evoked potential (VEP) recording systems. Can J Neurol Sci 36(1):89–92PubMed
3.
go back to reference Nagy BV, Gemesi S, Heller D, Magyar A, Farkas A, Abraham G, Varsanyi B (2011) Comparison of pattern VEP results acquired using CRT and TFT stimulators in the clinical practice. Doc Ophthalmol 122(3):157–162. doi:10.1007/s10633-011-9270-5 PubMedCrossRef Nagy BV, Gemesi S, Heller D, Magyar A, Farkas A, Abraham G, Varsanyi B (2011) Comparison of pattern VEP results acquired using CRT and TFT stimulators in the clinical practice. Doc Ophthalmol 122(3):157–162. doi:10.​1007/​s10633-011-9270-5 PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Matsumoto CS, Shinoda K, Matsumoto H, Funada H, Minoda H, Mizota A (2013) Liquid crystal display screens as stimulators for visually evoked potentials: flash effect due to delay in luminance changes. Doc Ophthalmol. doi:10.1007/s10633-013-9387-9 PubMed Matsumoto CS, Shinoda K, Matsumoto H, Funada H, Minoda H, Mizota A (2013) Liquid crystal display screens as stimulators for visually evoked potentials: flash effect due to delay in luminance changes. Doc Ophthalmol. doi:10.​1007/​s10633-013-9387-9 PubMed
6.
go back to reference Matsumoto CSSK, Matsumoto H, Funada H, Sasaki K, Minoda H, Mizota A (2014) Comparisons of pattern visually evoked potentials elicited by different response time liquid crystal display screens. Ophthalmic Res 51(3):117–123PubMedCrossRef Matsumoto CSSK, Matsumoto H, Funada H, Sasaki K, Minoda H, Mizota A (2014) Comparisons of pattern visually evoked potentials elicited by different response time liquid crystal display screens. Ophthalmic Res 51(3):117–123PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Keating D, Parks S, Malloch C, Evans A (2001) A comparison of CRT and digital stimulus delivery methods in the multifocal ERG. Doc Ophthalmol 102(2):95–114PubMedCrossRef Keating D, Parks S, Malloch C, Evans A (2001) A comparison of CRT and digital stimulus delivery methods in the multifocal ERG. Doc Ophthalmol 102(2):95–114PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Kaltwasser C, Horn FK, Kremers J, Juenemann A (2008) A comparison of the suitability of cathode ray tube (CRT) and liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors as visual stimulators in mfERG diagnostics. Doc Ophthalmol. doi:10.1007/s10633-008-9152-7 PubMed Kaltwasser C, Horn FK, Kremers J, Juenemann A (2008) A comparison of the suitability of cathode ray tube (CRT) and liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors as visual stimulators in mfERG diagnostics. Doc Ophthalmol. doi:10.​1007/​s10633-008-9152-7 PubMed
10.
go back to reference Keating D, Parks S (2006) Multifocal techniques. In: Heckenlively JR, Arden GB (eds) Principles and practice of clinical electrophysiology of vision, vol 1, 2nd edn. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, pp 319–340 Keating D, Parks S (2006) Multifocal techniques. In: Heckenlively JR, Arden GB (eds) Principles and practice of clinical electrophysiology of vision, vol 1, 2nd edn. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, pp 319–340
13.
go back to reference Jasper H (1958) The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 10(1):371–375 Jasper H (1958) The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 10(1):371–375
14.
go back to reference Zhang X, Hood DC, Chen CS, Hong JE (2002) A signal-to-noise analysis of multifocal VEP responses: an objective definition for poor records. Doc Ophthalmol 104(3):287–302PubMedCrossRef Zhang X, Hood DC, Chen CS, Hong JE (2002) A signal-to-noise analysis of multifocal VEP responses: an objective definition for poor records. Doc Ophthalmol 104(3):287–302PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Brigell M, Bach M, Barber C, Moskowitz A, Robson J (2003) Guidelines for calibration of stimulus and recording parameters used in clinical electrophysiology of vision. Doc Ophthalmol 107(2):185–193PubMedCrossRef Brigell M, Bach M, Barber C, Moskowitz A, Robson J (2003) Guidelines for calibration of stimulus and recording parameters used in clinical electrophysiology of vision. Doc Ophthalmol 107(2):185–193PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Lovasik JV, Ahmedbhai N (1985) Stimulus contaminants in visual electrophysiology. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 62(5):334–343PubMedCrossRef Lovasik JV, Ahmedbhai N (1985) Stimulus contaminants in visual electrophysiology. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 62(5):334–343PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparison of cathode ray tube and liquid crystal display stimulators for use in multifocal VEP
Authors
Marÿke Fox
Colin Barber
David Keating
Alan Perkins
Publication date
01-10-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Documenta Ophthalmologica / Issue 2/2014
Print ISSN: 0012-4486
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2622
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-014-9451-0

Other articles of this Issue 2/2014

Documenta Ophthalmologica 2/2014 Go to the issue