Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Documenta Ophthalmologica 1/2017

01-02-2017 | Original Research Article

Test–retest reliability of the multifocal photopic negative response

Authors: Anthony W. Van Alstine, Suresh Viswanathan

Published in: Documenta Ophthalmologica | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the test–retest reliability of the multifocal photopic negative response (mfPhNR) of normal human subjects.

Methods

Multifocal electroretinograms were recorded from one eye of 61 healthy adult subjects on two separate days using a Visual Evoked Response Imaging System software version 4.3 (EDI, San Mateo, California). The visual stimulus delivered on a 75-Hz monitor consisted of seven equal-sized hexagons each subtending 12° of visual angle. The m-step exponent was 9, and the m-sequence was slowed to include at least 30 blank frames after each flash. Only the first slice of the first-order kernel was analyzed. The mfPhNR amplitude was measured at a fixed time in the trough from baseline (BT) as well as at the same fixed time in the trough from the preceding b-wave peak (PT). Additionally, we also analyzed BT normalized either to PT (BT/PT) or to the b-wave amplitude (BT/b-wave). The relative reliability of test–retest differences for each test location was estimated by the Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank test and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Absolute test–retest reliability was estimated by Bland–Altman analysis.

Results

The test–retest amplitude differences for neither of the two measurement techniques were statistically significant as determined by Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank test. PT measurements showed greater ICC values than BT amplitude measurements for all test locations. For each measurement technique, the ICC value of the macular response was greater than that of the surrounding locations. The mean test–retest difference was close to zero for both techniques at each of the test locations, and while the coefficient of reliability (COR—1.96 times the standard deviation of the test–retest difference) was comparable for the two techniques at each test location when expressed in nanovolts, the %COR (COR normalized to the mean test and retest amplitudes) was superior for PT than BT measurements. The ICC and COR were comparable for the BT/PT and BT/b-wave ratios and were better than the ICC and COR for BT but worse than PT.

Conclusion

mfPhNR amplitude measured at a fixed time in the trough from the preceding b-wave peak (PT) shows greater test–retest reliability when compared to amplitude measurement from baseline (BT) or BT amplitude normalized to either the PT or b-wave amplitudes.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Viswanathan S, Frishman LJ, Robson JG, Harwerth RS, Smith EL 3rd (1999) The photopic negative response of the macaque electroretinogram: reduction by experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 40:1124–1136PubMed Viswanathan S, Frishman LJ, Robson JG, Harwerth RS, Smith EL 3rd (1999) The photopic negative response of the macaque electroretinogram: reduction by experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 40:1124–1136PubMed
2.
go back to reference Colotto A, Falsini B, Salgarello T, Iarossi G, Galan ME, Scullica L (2000) Photopic negative response of the human ERG: losses associated with glaucomatous damage. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:2205–2211PubMed Colotto A, Falsini B, Salgarello T, Iarossi G, Galan ME, Scullica L (2000) Photopic negative response of the human ERG: losses associated with glaucomatous damage. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:2205–2211PubMed
3.
go back to reference Viswanathan S, Frishman LJ, Robson JG, Walters JW (2001) The photopic negative response of the flash electroretinogram in primary open angle glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42:514–522PubMed Viswanathan S, Frishman LJ, Robson JG, Walters JW (2001) The photopic negative response of the flash electroretinogram in primary open angle glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42:514–522PubMed
4.
go back to reference Rangaswamy NV, Frishman LJ, Dorotheo EU, Schiffman JS, Bahrani HM, Tang RA (2004) Photopic ERGs in patients with optic neuropathies: comparison with primate ERGs after pharmacologic blockade of inner retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:3827–3837CrossRefPubMed Rangaswamy NV, Frishman LJ, Dorotheo EU, Schiffman JS, Bahrani HM, Tang RA (2004) Photopic ERGs in patients with optic neuropathies: comparison with primate ERGs after pharmacologic blockade of inner retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:3827–3837CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Gotoh Y, Machida S, Tazawa Y (2004) Selective loss of the photopic negative response in patients with optic nerve atrophy. Arch Ophthalmol 122:341–346CrossRefPubMed Gotoh Y, Machida S, Tazawa Y (2004) Selective loss of the photopic negative response in patients with optic nerve atrophy. Arch Ophthalmol 122:341–346CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Machida S, Gotoh Y, Tanaka M, Tazawa Y (2004) Predominant loss of the photopic negative response in central retinal artery occlusion. Am J Ophthalmol 137:938–940CrossRefPubMed Machida S, Gotoh Y, Tanaka M, Tazawa Y (2004) Predominant loss of the photopic negative response in central retinal artery occlusion. Am J Ophthalmol 137:938–940CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Chen H, Wu D, Huang S, Yan H (2006) The photopic negative response of the flash electroretinogram in retinal vein occlusion. Doc Ophthalmol 113:53–59CrossRefPubMed Chen H, Wu D, Huang S, Yan H (2006) The photopic negative response of the flash electroretinogram in retinal vein occlusion. Doc Ophthalmol 113:53–59CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Chen H, Zhang M, Huang S, Wu D (2008) The photopic negative response of flash ERG in nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. Doc Ophthalmol 117:129–135CrossRefPubMed Chen H, Zhang M, Huang S, Wu D (2008) The photopic negative response of flash ERG in nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. Doc Ophthalmol 117:129–135CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Moon CH, Hwang SC, Kim BT, Ohn YH, Park TK (2011) Visual prognostic value of optical coherence tomography and photopic negative response in chiasmal compression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52:8527–8533CrossRefPubMed Moon CH, Hwang SC, Kim BT, Ohn YH, Park TK (2011) Visual prognostic value of optical coherence tomography and photopic negative response in chiasmal compression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52:8527–8533CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference McFarlane M, Wright T, Stephens D, Nilsson J, Westall CA (2012) Blue flash ERG PhNR changes associated with poor long-term glycemic control in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53:741–748CrossRefPubMed McFarlane M, Wright T, Stephens D, Nilsson J, Westall CA (2012) Blue flash ERG PhNR changes associated with poor long-term glycemic control in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53:741–748CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Wang J, Cheng H, Hu YS, Tang RA, Frishman LJ (2012) The photopic negative response of the flash electroretinogram in multiple sclerosis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53:1315–1323CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wang J, Cheng H, Hu YS, Tang RA, Frishman LJ (2012) The photopic negative response of the flash electroretinogram in multiple sclerosis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53:1315–1323CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Kirkiewicz M, Lubinski W, Penkala K (2016) Photopic negative response of full-field electroretinography in patients with different stages of glaucomatous optic neuropathy. Doc Ophthalmol 132:57–65CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kirkiewicz M, Lubinski W, Penkala K (2016) Photopic negative response of full-field electroretinography in patients with different stages of glaucomatous optic neuropathy. Doc Ophthalmol 132:57–65CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Machida S, Gotoh Y, Toba Y, Ohtaki A, Kaneko M, Kurosaka D (2008) Correlation between photopic negative response and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness and optic disc topography in glaucomatous eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49:2201–2207CrossRefPubMed Machida S, Gotoh Y, Toba Y, Ohtaki A, Kaneko M, Kurosaka D (2008) Correlation between photopic negative response and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness and optic disc topography in glaucomatous eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49:2201–2207CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Kondo M, Kurimoto Y, Sakai T, Koyasu T, Miyata K, Ueno S, Terasaki H (2008) Recording focal macular photopic negative response (PhNR) from monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49:3544–3550CrossRefPubMed Kondo M, Kurimoto Y, Sakai T, Koyasu T, Miyata K, Ueno S, Terasaki H (2008) Recording focal macular photopic negative response (PhNR) from monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49:3544–3550CrossRefPubMed
15.
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 49:5636–5644CrossRefPubMed 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 49:5636–5644CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Machida S, Tamada K, Oikawa T, Yokoyama D, Kaneko M, Kurosaka D (2010) Sensitivity and specificity of photopic negative response of focal electoretinogram to detect glaucomatous eyes. Br J Ophthalmol 94:202–208CrossRefPubMed Machida S, Tamada K, Oikawa T, Yokoyama D, Kaneko M, Kurosaka D (2010) Sensitivity and specificity of photopic negative response of focal electoretinogram to detect glaucomatous eyes. Br J Ophthalmol 94:202–208CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Machida S, Tamada K, Oikawa T, Gotoh Y, Nishimura T, Kaneko M, Kurosaka D (2011) Comparison of photopic negative response of full-field and focal electroretinograms in detecting glaucomatous eyes. J Ophthalmol 2011:2011CrossRef Machida S, Tamada K, Oikawa T, Gotoh Y, Nishimura T, Kaneko M, Kurosaka D (2011) Comparison of photopic negative response of full-field and focal electroretinograms in detecting glaucomatous eyes. J Ophthalmol 2011:2011CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Machida S, Kaneko M, Kurosaka D (2015) Regional variations in correlation between photopic negative response of focal electoretinograms and ganglion cell complex in glaucoma. Curr Eye Res 40:439–449CrossRefPubMed Machida S, Kaneko M, Kurosaka D (2015) Regional variations in correlation between photopic negative response of focal electoretinograms and ganglion cell complex in glaucoma. Curr Eye Res 40:439–449CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Tamada K, Machida S, Yokoyama D, Kurosaka D (2009) Photopic negative response of full-field and focal macular electroretinograms in patients with optic nerve atrophy. Jpn J Ophthalmol 53:608–614CrossRefPubMed Tamada K, Machida S, Yokoyama D, Kurosaka D (2009) Photopic negative response of full-field and focal macular electroretinograms in patients with optic nerve atrophy. Jpn J Ophthalmol 53:608–614CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Tamada K, Machida S, Oikawa T, Miyamoto H, Nishimura T, Kurosaka D (2010) Correlation between photopic negative response of focal electroretinograms and local loss of retinal neurons in glaucoma. Curr Eye Res 35:155–164CrossRefPubMed Tamada K, Machida S, Oikawa T, Miyamoto H, Nishimura T, Kurosaka D (2010) Correlation between photopic negative response of focal electroretinograms and local loss of retinal neurons in glaucoma. Curr Eye Res 35:155–164CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Kaneko M, Machida S, Hoshi Y, Kurosaka D (2015) Alterations of photopic negative response of multifocal electroretinogram in patients with glaucoma. Curr Eye Res 40:77–86CrossRefPubMed Kaneko M, Machida S, Hoshi Y, Kurosaka D (2015) Alterations of photopic negative response of multifocal electroretinogram in patients with glaucoma. Curr Eye Res 40:77–86CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Kato F, Miura G, Shirato S, Sato E, Yamamoto S (2015) Correlation between N2 amplitude of multifocal ERGs and retinal sensitivity and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in glaucomatous eyes. Doc Ophthalmol 131:97–206CrossRef Kato F, Miura G, Shirato S, Sato E, Yamamoto S (2015) Correlation between N2 amplitude of multifocal ERGs and retinal sensitivity and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in glaucomatous eyes. Doc Ophthalmol 131:97–206CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Golemez H, Yildirim N, Ozer A (2016) Is multifocal electroretinography an early predictor of glaucoma? Doc Ophthalmol 132:27–37CrossRefPubMed Golemez H, Yildirim N, Ozer A (2016) Is multifocal electroretinography an early predictor of glaucoma? Doc Ophthalmol 132:27–37CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Mortlock KE, Binns AM, Aldebasi YH, North RV (2010) Inter-subject, inter-ocular and inter-session repeatability of the photopic negative response of the electroretinogram recorded using DTL and skin electrodes. Doc Ophthalmol 121:123–134CrossRefPubMed Mortlock KE, Binns AM, Aldebasi YH, North RV (2010) Inter-subject, inter-ocular and inter-session repeatability of the photopic negative response of the electroretinogram recorded using DTL and skin electrodes. Doc Ophthalmol 121:123–134CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
go back to reference Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70 Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70
27.
go back to reference Portney LG, Watkins C (2001) Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. Prentice Hall Health, Upper Saddle Portney LG, Watkins C (2001) Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. Prentice Hall Health, Upper Saddle
28.
go back to reference Cicchetti DV (1994) Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess 6:284–290CrossRef Cicchetti DV (1994) Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess 6:284–290CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310CrossRefPubMed Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Fortune B, Bui BV, Cull G, Wang L, Cioffi GA (2004) Inter-ocular and inter-session reliability of the electroretinogram photopic negative response (PhNR) in non-human primates. Exp Eye Res 78:83–93CrossRefPubMed Fortune B, Bui BV, Cull G, Wang L, Cioffi GA (2004) Inter-ocular and inter-session reliability of the electroretinogram photopic negative response (PhNR) in non-human primates. Exp Eye Res 78:83–93CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Kundra H, Park JC, McAnany JJ (2016) Comparison of photopic negative response measurements in the time and time-frequency domains. Doc Ophthalmol 133:91–98CrossRefPubMed Kundra H, Park JC, McAnany JJ (2016) Comparison of photopic negative response measurements in the time and time-frequency domains. Doc Ophthalmol 133:91–98CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Preiser D, Lagreze WA, Bach M, Poloschek CM (2013) Photopic negative response versus pattern electroretinogram in early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54:1182–1191CrossRefPubMed Preiser D, Lagreze WA, Bach M, Poloschek CM (2013) Photopic negative response versus pattern electroretinogram in early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54:1182–1191CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Wu Z, Hadoux X, Fan Gaskin JC, Sarossy MG, Crowston JG (2016) Measuring the photopic negative response: viability of skin electrodes and variability across disease severities in glaucoma. Transl Vis Sci Technol 5:13CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wu Z, Hadoux X, Fan Gaskin JC, Sarossy MG, Crowston JG (2016) Measuring the photopic negative response: viability of skin electrodes and variability across disease severities in glaucoma. Transl Vis Sci Technol 5:13CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Test–retest reliability of the multifocal photopic negative response
Authors
Anthony W. Van Alstine
Suresh Viswanathan
Publication date
01-02-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Documenta Ophthalmologica / Issue 1/2017
Print ISSN: 0012-4486
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2622
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-016-9569-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Documenta Ophthalmologica 1/2017 Go to the issue