Objective Visual Acuity Estimates in Amblyopia Are More Accurate With Optotype-Based P300 Than With VEP Measurements.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read More Add to Saved list
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101595919 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 2164-2591 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 21642591 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Transl Vis Sci Technol Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Original Publication: Rockville, Md. : Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology
    • Subject Terms:
      Amblyopia*/physiopathology ; Amblyopia*/diagnosis ; Visual Acuity*/physiology ; Evoked Potentials, Visual*/physiology ; Event-Related Potentials, P300*/physiology; Humans ; Female ; Male ; Adult ; Young Adult ; Middle Aged ; Aged ; Vision Tests/methods
    • Abstract:
      Purpose: Traditional visual acuity (VA) measurements depend on subjective responses, which can be unreliable, especially with uncooperative participants. Objective measurements with visual evoked potentials (VEP) address this issue but can overestimate VA in amblyopia. This study aims to establish the P300 component of the event-related potential as an objective VA test for amblyopia and compare its performance to subjective (psychophysical) and VEP-based VA estimates.
      Methods: Psychophysical, VEP-based, and P300-based VA estimates were obtained for amblyopic and fellow eyes of 18 participants (aged 19-65) in a bicentric study. VEP-based VA was determined from the spatial frequency threshold derived from occipital cortex pattern-pulse responses to check-sizes ranging from 0.048° to 8.95°. P300 responses were collected using visual oddball sequences with circular optotypes. The threshold was estimated from the sigmoid function of parietal P300 amplitude versus optotype gap size. Mean VA values for amblyopic eyes were compared across methods.
      Results: VEP-based VA of the amblyopic eyes overestimated psychophysical VA by 0.18 ± 0.06 logMAR (P = 0.0016). In contrast, P300-based VA showed no significant difference from psychophysical VA (0.00 ± 0.04 logMAR, P > 0.05).
      Conclusions: In amblyopia, P300-based optotype VA aligns more closely with psychophysical VA than VEP-based VA, suggesting that P300-based VA is a valid objective alternative for estimating VA in amblyopic eyes.
      Translational Relevance: This study highlights the potential of P300-based VA testing as a reliable and objective method for assessing VA in amblyopic eyes, offering a promising tool for clinical and research applications where traditional methods fall short.
    • References:
      Clin Neurophysiol. 2010 Sep;121(9):1464-1472. (PMID: 20399706)
      Doc Ophthalmol. 2021 Feb;142(1):25-74. (PMID: 32488810)
      Doc Ophthalmol. 2014 Jun;128(3):191-200. (PMID: 24623357)
      Doc Ophthalmol. 2024 Oct;149(2):87-98. (PMID: 38916779)
      Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Dec;9(4):739-43. (PMID: 12613677)
      J Vis. 2010 Dec 16;10(14):18. (PMID: 21163955)
      Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1996 Nov;100(6):555-62. (PMID: 8980420)
      Arch Ophthalmol. 1995 Apr;113(4):485-93. (PMID: 7710400)
      Doc Ophthalmol. 2007 May;114(3):135-45. (PMID: 17310345)
      Sci Rep. 2024 Jul 22;14(1):16797. (PMID: 39039066)
      Optom Vis Sci. 1996 Jan;73(1):49-53. (PMID: 8867682)
      Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003 Apr;44(4):1555-67. (PMID: 12657592)
      Int J Psychophysiol. 2009 Sep;73(3):287-93. (PMID: 19426768)
      Neurodiagn J. 2016;56(4):245-252. (PMID: 28436791)
      Fortschr Ophthalmol. 1990;87(5):500-3. (PMID: 2272583)
      Behav Res Methods. 2019 Feb;51(1):195-203. (PMID: 30734206)
      J Clin Neurophysiol. 1992 Oct;9(4):456-79. (PMID: 1464675)
      Doc Ophthalmol. 2021 Feb;142(1):17-24. (PMID: 32676804)
      Arch Ophthalmol. 1985 Jan;103(1):47-50. (PMID: 3883965)
      Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015 Apr;56(4):2184-91. (PMID: 25744983)
      Doc Ophthalmol. 2018 Feb;136(1):69-74. (PMID: 29134296)
      Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003 Sep;44(9):4123-30. (PMID: 12939336)
      Pflugers Arch. 1978 Nov 30;377(3):201-7. (PMID: 569815)
      Doc Ophthalmol. 2008 Jul;117(1):73-83. (PMID: 18188630)
      Doc Ophthalmol. 2017 Dec;135(3):209-218. (PMID: 28980154)
      Br J Ophthalmol. 2008 Mar;92(3):396-403. (PMID: 18303162)
      Vision Res. 1993 Mar-Apr;33(5-6):677-90. (PMID: 8351840)
      Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 1992 Dec;3(6):735-40. (PMID: 10147973)
      Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2018 Mar 1;59(3):1435-1442. (PMID: 29625467)
      J Neurosci Methods. 2008 Sep 30;174(2):259-64. (PMID: 18694782)
      Am J Ophthalmol. 1990 Sep 15;110(3):293-9. (PMID: 2396655)
      Doc Ophthalmol. 2016 Dec;133(3):183-187. (PMID: 27864655)
      Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004 Dec;45(12):4333-9. (PMID: 15557440)
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20241217 Date Completed: 20241217 Latest Revision: 20250104
    • Publication Date:
      20250104
    • Accession Number:
      PMC11654770
    • Accession Number:
      10.1167/tvst.13.12.30
    • Accession Number:
      39688849