Evaluation of hemifield sector analysis protocol in multifocal visual evoked potential (MFVEP) objective perimetry for the diagnosis and early detection of glaucomatous field defects

Visual field assessment is a core component of glaucoma diagnosis and monitoring, and the Standard Automated Perimetry (SAP) test is considered up until this moment, the gold standard of visual field assessment. Although SAP is a subjective assessment and has many pitfalls, it is being constantly used in the diagnosis of visual field loss in glaucoma. Multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) is a newly introduced method used for visual field assessment objectively. Several analysis protocols have been tested to identify early visual field losses in glaucoma patients using the mfVEP technique, some were successful in detection of field defects, which were comparable to the standard SAP visual field assessment, and others were not very informative and needed more adjustment and research work. In this study, we implemented a novel analysis approach and evaluated its validity and whether it could be used effectively for early detection of visual field defects in glaucoma. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of a new analysis method in the Multi-Focal Visual Evoked Potential (mfVEP) when it is used for the objective assessment of the visual field in glaucoma patients, compared to the gold standard technique. METHODS: 3 groups were tested in this study; normal controls (38 eyes), glaucoma patients (36 eyes) and glaucoma suspect patients (38 eyes). All subjects had a two standard Humphrey visual field HFA test 24-2 and a single mfVEP test undertaken in one session. Analysis of the mfVEP results was done using the new analysis protocol; the Hemifield Sector Analysis HSA protocol. Analysis of the HFA was done using the standard grading system. RESULTS: Analysis of mfVEP results showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the 3 groups in the mean signal to noise ratio SNR (ANOVA p<0.001 with a 95% CI). The difference between superior and inferior hemispheres in all subjects were all statistically significant in the glaucoma patient group 11/11 sectors (t-test p<0.001), partially significant 5/11 (t-test p<0.01) and no statistical difference between most sectors in normal group (only 1/11 was significant) (t-test p<0.9). sensitivity and specificity of the HAS protocol in detecting glaucoma was 97% and 86% respectively, while for glaucoma suspect were 89% and 79%. DISCUSSION: The results showed that the new analysis protocol was able to confirm already existing field defects detected by standard HFA, was able to differentiate between the 3 study groups with a clear distinction between normal and patients with suspected glaucoma; however the distinction between normal and glaucoma patients was especially clear and significant. CONCLUSION: The new HSA protocol used in the mfVEP testing can be used to detect glaucomatous visual field defects in both glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patient. Using this protocol can provide information about focal visual field differences across the horizontal midline, which can be utilized to differentiate between glaucoma and normal subjects. Sensitivity and specificity of the mfVEP test showed very promising results and correlated with other anatomical changes in glaucoma field loss.

Comparison of the reliability of multifocal visual evoked cortical potentials generated by pattern reversal and pattern pulse stimulation

This study compared the effectiveness of the multifocal visual evoked cortical potentials (mfVEP) elicited by pattern pulse stimulation with that of pattern reversal in producing reliable responses (signal-to-noise ratio >1.359). Participants were 14 healthy subjects. Visual stimulation was obtained using a 60-sector dartboard display consisting of 6 concentric rings presented in either pulse or reversal mode. Each sector, consisting of 16 checks at 99% Michelson contrast and 80 cd/m² mean luminance, was controlled by a binary m-sequence in the time domain. The signal-to-noise ratio was generally larger in the pattern reversal than in the pattern pulse mode. The number of reliable responses was similar in the central sectors for the two stimulation modes. At the periphery, pattern reversal showed a larger number of reliable responses. Pattern pulse stimuli performed similarly to pattern reversal stimuli to generate reliable waveforms in R1 and R2. The advantage of using both protocols to study mfVEP responses is their complementarity: in some patients, reliable waveforms in specific sectors may be obtained with only one of the two methods. The joint analysis of pattern reversal and pattern pulse stimuli increased the rate of reliability for central sectors by 7.14% in R1, 5.35% in R2, 4.76% in R3, 3.57% in R4, 2.97% in R5, and 1.78% in R6. From R1 to R4 the reliability to generate mfVEPs was above 70% when using both protocols. Thus, for a very high reliability and thorough examination of visual performance, it is recommended to use both stimulation protocols.

Comparison of the reliability of multifocal visual evoked cortical potentials generated by pattern reversal and pattern pulse stimulation

This study compared the effectiveness of the multifocal visual evoked cortical potentials (mfVEP) elicited by pattern pulse stimulation with that of pattern reversal in producing reliable responses (signal-to-noise ratio >1.359). Participants were 14 healthy subjects. Visual stimulation was obtained using a 60-sector dartboard display consisting of 6 concentric rings presented in either pulse or reversal mode. Each sector, consisting of 16 checks at 99% Michelson contrast and 80 cd/m2 mean luminance, was controlled by a binary m-sequence in the time domain. The signal-to-noise ratio was generally larger in the pattern reversal than in the pattern pulse mode. The number of reliable responses was similar in the central sectors for the two stimulation modes. At the periphery, pattern reversal showed a larger number of reliable responses. Pattern pulse stimuli performed similarly to pattern reversal stimuli to generate reliable waveforms in R1 and R2. The advantage of using both protocols to study mfVEP responses is their complementarity: in some patients, reliable waveforms in specific sectors may be obtained with only one of the two methods. The joint analysis of pattern reversal and pattern pulse stimuli increased the rate of reliability for central sectors by 7.14% in R1, 5.35% in R2, 4.76% in R3, 3.57% in R4, 2.97% in R5, and 1.78% in R6. From R1 to R4 the reliability to generate mfVEPs was above 70% when using both protocols. Thus, for a very high reliability and thorough examination of visual performance, it is recommended to use both stimulation protocols.

Comparison of the reliability of multifocal visual evoked cortical potentials generated by pattern reversal and pattern pulse stimulation

This study compared the effectiveness of the multifocal visual evoked cortical potentials (mfVEP) elicited by pattern pulse stimulation with that of pattern reversal in producing reliable responses (signal-to-noise ratio >1.359). Participants were 14 healthy subjects. Visual stimulation was obtained using a 60-sector dartboard display consisting of 6 concentric rings presented in either pulse or reversal mode. Each sector, consisting of 16 checks at 99% Michelson contrast and 80 cd/m² mean luminance, was controlled by a binary m-sequence in the time domain. The signal-to-noise ratio was generally larger in the pattern reversal than in the pattern pulse mode. The number of reliable responses was similar in the central sectors for the two stimulation modes. At the periphery, pattern reversal showed a larger number of reliable responses. Pattern pulse stimuli performed similarly to pattern reversal stimuli to generate reliable waveforms in R1 and R2. The advantage of using both protocols to study mfVEP responses is their complementarity: in some patients, reliable waveforms in specific sectors may be obtained with only one of the two methods. The joint analysis of pattern reversal and pattern pulse stimuli increased the rate of reliability for central sectors by 7.14% in R1, 5.35% in R2, 4.76% in R3, 3.57% in R4, 2.97% in R5, and 1.78% in R6. From R1 to R4 the reliability to generate mfVEPs was above 70% when using both protocols. Thus, for a very high reliability and thorough examination of visual performance, it is recommended to use both stimulation protocols.

The role of hemifield sector analysis in multifocal visual evoked potential objective perimetry in the early detection of glaucomatous visual field defects

Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a new analysis method of mfVEP objective perimetry in the early detection of glaucomatous visual field defects compared to the gold standard technique. Methods and patients: Three groups were tested in this study; normal controls (38 eyes), glaucoma patients (36 eyes), and glaucoma suspect patients (38 eyes). All subjects underwent two standard 24-2 visual field tests: one with the Humphrey Field Analyzer and a single mfVEP test in one session. Analysis of the mfVEP results was carried out using the new analysis protocol: the hemifield sector analysis protocol. Results: Analysis of the mfVEP showed that the signal to noise ratio (SNR) difference between superior and inferior hemifields was statistically significant between the three groups (analysis of variance, P<0.001 with a 95% confidence interval, 2.82, 2.89 for normal group; 2.25, 2.29 for glaucoma suspect group; 1.67, 1.73 for glaucoma group). The difference between superior and inferior hemifield sectors and hemi-rings was statistically significant in 11/11 pair of sectors and hemi-rings in the glaucoma patients group (t-test P<0.001), statistically significant in 5/11 pairs of sectors and hemi-rings in the glaucoma suspect group (t-test P<0.01), and only 1/11 pair was statistically significant (t-test P<0.9). The sensitivity and specificity of the hemifield sector analysis protocol in detecting glaucoma was 97% and 86% respectively and 89% and 79% in glaucoma suspects. These results showed that the new analysis protocol was able to confirm existing visual field defects detected by standard perimetry, was able to differentiate between the three study groups with a clear distinction between normal patients and those with suspected glaucoma, and was able to detect early visual field changes not detected by standard perimetry. In addition, the distinction between normal and glaucoma patients was especially clear and significant using this analysis. Conclusion: The new hemifield sector analysis protocol used in mfVEP testing can be used to detect glaucomatous visual field defects in both glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients. Using this protocol, it can provide information about focal visual field differences across the horizontal midline, which can be utilized to differentiate between glaucoma and normal subjects. The sensitivity and specificity of the mfVEP test showed very promising results and correlated with other anatomical changes in glaucomatous visual field loss. The intersector analysis protocol can detect early field changes not detected by the standard Humphrey Field Analyzer test. © 2013 Mousa et al, publisher and licensee Dove Medical Press Ltd.

Evaluation of hemifield sector analysis protocol in multifocal visual evoked potential objective perimetry for the diagnosis and early detection of glaucomatous field defects

CONCLUSIONS: The new HSA protocol used in the mfVEP testing can be applied to detect glaucomatous visual field defects in both glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients. Using this protocol can provide information about focal visual field differences across the horizontal midline, which can be utilized to differentiate between glaucoma and normal subjects. Sensitivity and specificity of the mfVEP test showed very promising results and correlated with other anatomical changes in glaucoma field loss. PURPOSE: Multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) is a newly introduced method used for objective visual field assessment. Several analysis protocols have been tested to identify early visual field losses in glaucoma patients using the mfVEP technique, some were successful in detection of field defects, which were comparable to the standard automated perimetry (SAP) visual field assessment, and others were not very informative and needed more adjustment and research work. In this study we implemented a novel analysis approach and evaluated its validity and whether it could be used effectively for early detection of visual field defects in glaucoma. METHODS: Three groups were tested in this study; normal controls (38 eyes), glaucoma patients (36 eyes) and glaucoma suspect patients (38 eyes). All subjects had a two standard Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) test 24-2 and a single mfVEP test undertaken in one session. Analysis of the mfVEP results was done using the new analysis protocol; the hemifield sector analysis (HSA) protocol. Analysis of the HFA was done using the standard grading system. RESULTS: Analysis of mfVEP results showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the three groups in the mean signal to noise ratio (ANOVA test, p < 0.001 with a 95% confidence interval). The difference between superior and inferior hemispheres in all subjects were statistically significant in the glaucoma patient group in all 11 sectors (t-test, p < 0.001), partially significant in 5 / 11 (t-test, p < 0.01), and no statistical difference in most sectors of the normal group (1 / 11 sectors was significant, t-test, p < 0.9). Sensitivity and specificity of the HSA protocol in detecting glaucoma was 97% and 86%, respectively, and for glaucoma suspect patients the values were 89% and 79%, respectively.

The benefit of combining standard automated perimetry and multifocal visual evoked potential hemifield intersector analysis in suspecious glaucomatous visual field defects

Several analysis protocols have been tested to identify early visual field losses in glaucoma patients using the mfVEP technique, some were successful in detection of field defects, which were comparable to the standard SAP visual field assessment, and others were not very informative and needed more adjustment and research work. In this study we implemented a novel analysis approach and evaluated its validity and whether it could be used effectively for early detection of visual field defects in glaucoma. The purpose of this study is to examine the benefit of adding mfVEP hemifield Intersector analysis protocol to the standard HFA test when there is suspicious glaucomatous visual field loss. 3 groups were tested in this study; normal controls (38 eyes), glaucoma patients (36 eyes) and glaucoma suspect patients (38 eyes). All subjects had a two standard Humphrey visual field HFA test 24-2, optical coherence tomography of the optic nerve head, and a single mfVEP test undertaken in one session. Analysis of the mfVEP results was done using the new analysis protocol; the Hemifield Sector Analysis HSA protocol. The retinal nerve fibre (RNFL) thickness was recorded to identify subjects with suspicious RNFL loss. The hemifield Intersector analysis of mfVEP results showed that signal to noise ratio (SNR) difference between superior and inferior hemifields was statistically significant between the 3 groups (ANOVA p<0.001 with a 95% CI). The difference between superior and inferior hemispheres in all subjects were all statistically significant in the glaucoma patient group 11/11 sectors (t-test p<0.001), partially significant 5/11 in glaucoma suspect group (t-test p<0.01) and no statistical difference between most sectors in normal group (only 1/11 was significant) (t-test p<0.9). Sensitivity and specificity of the HSA protocol in detecting glaucoma was 97% and 86% respectively, while for glaucoma suspect were 89% and 79%. The use of SAP and mfVEP results in subjects with suspicious glaucomatous visual field defects, identified by low RNFL thickness, is beneficial in confirming early visual field defects. The new HSA protocol used in the mfVEP testing can be used to detect glaucomatous visual field defects in both glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patient. Using this protocol in addition to SAP analysis can provide information about focal visual field differences across the horizontal midline, and confirm suspicious field defects. Sensitivity and specificity of the mfVEP test showed very promising results and correlated with other anatomical changes in glaucoma field loss. The Intersector analysis protocol can detect early field changes not detected by standard HFA test.