Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Documenta Ophthalmologica 2/2013

01-04-2013 | Original Research Article

The effect of filtering on the two-global-flash mfERG: identifying the optimal range of frequency for detecting glaucomatous retinal dysfunction

Authors: Anna A. Ledolter, Sophie A. Kramer, Margarita G. Todorova, Andreas Schötzau, Anja M. Palmowski-Wolfe

Published in: Documenta Ophthalmologica | Issue 2/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To study the effects of filtering bandwidth on the two-global-flash multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) responses in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) compared with control subjects.

Methods

A two-global-flash mfERG (VERIS 6.06™, FMS III) was recorded in 20 healthy subjects and 22 POAG patients with a band-pass filter (BPF) of 1–300 Hz (103 Hexagons, M-sequence stimulus: Lmax 100 cd/m2, Lmin < 1 cd/m2, global flash: 200 cd/m2). The root-mean-square average of the central 10° was calculated. Three response epochs were analysed: the response to the focal flash, at 15–45 ms (DC), and the following two components induced by the effects of the preceding focal flash on the response to the global flashes at 45–75 ms (IC1) and at 75–105 ms (IC2). The following BPF settings were analysed: 1–300 Hz, 3–300 Hz, 10–300 Hz, 100–300 Hz, 200–300 Hz, 1–10 Hz, 1–100 Hz and 1–200 Hz.

Results

Filtering at 1–300 Hz showed significantly lower responses in POAG than in control subjects (p < 0.001) for all epochs analysed. At 1–100 Hz, this also held true even though the difference between the groups became smaller. At 1–10 Hz, responses were extremely small and did not differ between POAG and control (p > 0.5). This would suggest a filter setting of 10–300 Hz for mfERG recordings in POAG. However, when a filter setting of 10–300 Hz was compared to 1–300 Hz, with a filter setting of 10–300 Hz, the DC in POAG differed more (p < 0.0001) from normal than with 1–300 Hz (p = 0.0002). For IC1 and IC2, the stronger difference between POAG and control was found with 1–300 Hz (p < 0.0001) rather than with 10–300 Hz (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0005, respectively). For the ‘oscillatory potentials’ at 100–300 Hz, POAG and control differed significantly in IC1 and IC2 (p < 0.05), but not in DC (p = 0.8). However, filtering at 200–300 Hz did not show a difference between POAG and control (p > 0.5). Thus, we applied a filter setting of 1–200 Hz, which seemed to be most sensitive in detecting glaucomatous retinal dysfunction (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

A filter setting of 1–200 Hz appears most sensitive to detect glaucomatous damage if using a two-global-flash mfERG: using a band-pass filter a with lower low-frequency cut-off, containing the 10 Hz component, may be especially important in the small induced components that show glaucomatous damage most sensitively. High frequencies of 100–300 Hz also contain information that differentiates glaucoma from normal and thus should be included in the analysis.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Han Y, Bearse MA Jr, Schneck ME, Barez S, Jacobsen C, Adams AJ (2004) Towards optimal filtering of “standard” multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) recordings: findings in normal and diabetic subjects. Br J Ophthalmol 88:543–550PubMedCrossRef Han Y, Bearse MA Jr, Schneck ME, Barez S, Jacobsen C, Adams AJ (2004) Towards optimal filtering of “standard” multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) recordings: findings in normal and diabetic subjects. Br J Ophthalmol 88:543–550PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Keating D, Parks S, Evans AL, Williamson TH, Elliott AT, Jay JL (1997) The effect of filter bandwidth on the multifocal electroretinogram. Doc Ophthalmol 92:291–300CrossRef Keating D, Parks S, Evans AL, Williamson TH, Elliott AT, Jay JL (1997) The effect of filter bandwidth on the multifocal electroretinogram. Doc Ophthalmol 92:291–300CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Hood DC, Bach M, Brigell M, Keating D, Kondo M, Lyons JS, Marmor MF, McCulloch DL, Palmowski-Wolfe AM, International Society For Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision (2012) ISCEV standard for clinical multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) (2011 edition). Doc Ophthalmol 124:1–13PubMedCrossRef Hood DC, Bach M, Brigell M, Keating D, Kondo M, Lyons JS, Marmor MF, McCulloch DL, Palmowski-Wolfe AM, International Society For Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision (2012) ISCEV standard for clinical multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) (2011 edition). Doc Ophthalmol 124:1–13PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Palmowski AM, Allgayer R, Heinemann-Vernaleken B, Ruprecht KW (2002) Multifocal electroretinogram with a multiflash stimulation technique in open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmic Res 34:83–89PubMedCrossRef Palmowski AM, Allgayer R, Heinemann-Vernaleken B, Ruprecht KW (2002) Multifocal electroretinogram with a multiflash stimulation technique in open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmic Res 34:83–89PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Palmowski-Wolfe AM, Todorova MG, Orguel S, Flammer J, Brigell M (2007) The ‘two global flash’ mfERG in high and normal tension primary open-angle glaucoma. Doc Ophthalmol 114:9–19PubMedCrossRef Palmowski-Wolfe AM, Todorova MG, Orguel S, Flammer J, Brigell M (2007) The ‘two global flash’ mfERG in high and normal tension primary open-angle glaucoma. Doc Ophthalmol 114:9–19PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Fortune B, Bearse MA Jr, Cioffi GA, Johnson CA (2002) Selective loss of an oscillatory component from temporal retinal multifocal ERG responses in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43:2638–2647PubMed Fortune B, Bearse MA Jr, Cioffi GA, Johnson CA (2002) Selective loss of an oscillatory component from temporal retinal multifocal ERG responses in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43:2638–2647PubMed
7.
go back to reference Kramer SA, Ledolter AA, Todorova MG, Schötzau A, Orgül S, Palmowski-Wolfe AM (2012) The 2-global flash mfERG in glaucoma: attempting to increase sensitivity by reducing the focal flash luminance and changing filter settings. doi:10.1007/s10633-012-9360-z Kramer SA, Ledolter AA, Todorova MG, Schötzau A, Orgül S, Palmowski-Wolfe AM (2012) The 2-global flash mfERG in glaucoma: attempting to increase sensitivity by reducing the focal flash luminance and changing filter settings. doi:10.​1007/​s10633-012-9360-z
9.
go back to reference R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna
10.
go back to reference Bearse MA Jr, Shimada Y, Sutter EE (2000) Distribution of oscillatory components in the central retina. Doc Ophthalmol 100:185–205PubMedCrossRef Bearse MA Jr, Shimada Y, Sutter EE (2000) Distribution of oscillatory components in the central retina. Doc Ophthalmol 100:185–205PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Rangaswamy NV, Zhou W, Harweth RS, Frishman LJ (2006) Effect of experimental glaucoma in primates on oscillatory potentials of the slow-sequence mfERG. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:753–767PubMedCrossRef Rangaswamy NV, Zhou W, Harweth RS, Frishman LJ (2006) Effect of experimental glaucoma in primates on oscillatory potentials of the slow-sequence mfERG. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:753–767PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Luo X, Patel NB, Harwerth RS, Frishman LJ (2011) Loss of the low-frequency component of the global-flash multifocal electroretinogram in primate eyes with experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52:3792–3804PubMedCrossRef Luo X, Patel NB, Harwerth RS, Frishman LJ (2011) Loss of the low-frequency component of the global-flash multifocal electroretinogram in primate eyes with experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52:3792–3804PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Chu PHW, Chan HHL, Ng Y-f, Brown B, Siu AW, Beale BA, Gilger BC, Wongd F (2008) Porcine global flash multifocal electroretinogram: possible mechanisms for the glaucomatous changes in contrast response function. Vision Res 48:1726–1734PubMedCrossRef Chu PHW, Chan HHL, Ng Y-f, Brown B, Siu AW, Beale BA, Gilger BC, Wongd F (2008) Porcine global flash multifocal electroretinogram: possible mechanisms for the glaucomatous changes in contrast response function. Vision Res 48:1726–1734PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Hood DC (2000) Assessing retinal function with the multifocal technique. Prog Retin Eye Res 19:607–646PubMedCrossRef Hood DC (2000) Assessing retinal function with the multifocal technique. Prog Retin Eye Res 19:607–646PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Shimada Y, Bearse MA Jr, Sutter EE (2005) Multifocal electroretinograms combined with periodic flashes: direct responses and induced components. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 243:132–141PubMedCrossRef Shimada Y, Bearse MA Jr, Sutter EE (2005) Multifocal electroretinograms combined with periodic flashes: direct responses and induced components. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 243:132–141PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Chu PH, Chan HH, Brown B (2006) Glaucoma detection is facilitated by luminance modulation of the global flash multifocal electroretinogram. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:929–937PubMedCrossRef Chu PH, Chan HH, Brown B (2006) Glaucoma detection is facilitated by luminance modulation of the global flash multifocal electroretinogram. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:929–937PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Viswanathan S, Frishman LJ, Van Alstine AW, Lou X, Swanson WH (2009) Multifocal photopic negative responses (mfPhNR) of macaques and humans. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci (E-Abstract 4758, 2009 ARVO) Viswanathan S, Frishman LJ, Van Alstine AW, Lou X, Swanson WH (2009) Multifocal photopic negative responses (mfPhNR) of macaques and humans. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci (E-Abstract 4758, 2009 ARVO)
18.
go back to reference Machida S, Toba Y, Ohtaki A, Gotoh Y, Kaneko M, Kurosaka D (2008) Photopic negative response of focal electoretinograms in glaucomatous eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49:5636–5644PubMedCrossRef Machida S, Toba Y, Ohtaki A, Gotoh Y, Kaneko M, Kurosaka D (2008) Photopic negative response of focal electoretinograms in glaucomatous eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49:5636–5644PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Lachapelle P, Benoit J (1994) Interpretation of the filtered 100- to 1000-Hz electroretinogram. Doc Ophthalmol 86(1):33–46PubMedCrossRef Lachapelle P, Benoit J (1994) Interpretation of the filtered 100- to 1000-Hz electroretinogram. Doc Ophthalmol 86(1):33–46PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Keating D, Parks S, Evans A (2000) Technical aspects of multifocal ERG recording. Doc Ophthalmol 100:77–98PubMedCrossRef Keating D, Parks S, Evans A (2000) Technical aspects of multifocal ERG recording. Doc Ophthalmol 100:77–98PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
The effect of filtering on the two-global-flash mfERG: identifying the optimal range of frequency for detecting glaucomatous retinal dysfunction
Authors
Anna A. Ledolter
Sophie A. Kramer
Margarita G. Todorova
Andreas Schötzau
Anja M. Palmowski-Wolfe
Publication date
01-04-2013
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Documenta Ophthalmologica / Issue 2/2013
Print ISSN: 0012-4486
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2622
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-012-9364-8

Other articles of this Issue 2/2013

Documenta Ophthalmologica 2/2013 Go to the issue

EditorialNotes

Editor’s comment