Skip to main content
Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research logoLink to Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research
. 2009 Apr;4(2):97–101.

Normal Values of Standard Full Field Electroretinography in an Iranian Population

Mohammad-Mehdi Parvaresh 1, Leila Ghiasian 1, Khalil Ghasemi Falavarjani 1,, Mostafa Soltan Sanjari 1, Nadia Sadighi 1
PMCID: PMC3498556  PMID: 23198055

Abstract

Purpose

To determine normal values of standard full-field electroretinography (ERG) and to evaluate their variations with age in an Iranian population.

Methods

Through convenient sampling, 170 normal subjects 1-80 years of age were selected from residents of Tehran. ERG amplitudes and implicit time values were measured according to recommendations by the International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision. Evaluations consisted of light-adapted ERG including single-white flash and 30-Hz flicker response; and dark-adapted ERG including rod, maximal dark-adapted and cone responses.

Results

No significant difference in ERG values was observed between men and women, or between right and left eyes. ERG amplitudes were lower (P=0.04) and implicit time values were greater (P=0.03) in subjects 70-80 years of age as compared to younger individuals.

Conclusion

ERG parameters are significantly diminished with age. Our results may serve as a reference against which standard ERG responses can be compared.

Keywords: Electroretinography, Iran

INTRODUCTION

Full field electroretinography (ERG) is a well established diagnostic procedure employed in the evaluation of retinal disorders. It determines the functional integrity of the retina, including rods and cones in the outer retina as well as associated pathways in the middle and inner layers of the retina.13 A standard ERG includes five recordings; response to dim stimulation in dark adaptation (scotopic rod response), response to a bright stimulus in dark adaptation (scotopic combined rod-cone response), oscillatory potentials, response to a bright stimulus in light adaptation (photopic single-flash cone response), and response to a flickering stimulus in light adaptation (photopic 30-Hz flicker cone response). Significant changes in the amplitude or implicit time of each response may indicate a distinct retinal disorder.14

Since 1989, the International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision (ISCEV) and the National Retinitis Pigmentosa Foundation (NRPF) have attempted to standardize ERG procedures.46 The methodology is updated on a regular basis in order to standardize ERG responses and make them universally comparable. This standard provides simple recommendations on technical procedures torecord reproducible ERGs under defined conditions in patients of all ages.6 However, despite unifying the practice, normal ERG responses may be influenced by other factors such as race, age, sex, medications, media clarity and refraction.612

The ISCEV recommends that each laboratory establish normal values based on its own equipment and patients.6 In this study, we measured ERG responses based on ISCEV standards in ophthalmologically normal Iranian subjects of different ages while attempting to eliminate avoidable confounding factors by using strict inclusion criteria.

METHODS

One hundred seventy Iranian residents of Tehran aged 1 to 80 years were enrolled for the purpose of the study. We used convenient sampling and selected the study subjects among hospital personnel, clients seeking spectacle prescriptions and patients’ attendants. The study subjects were asymptomatic with normal best-corrected visual acuity, normal color vision, normal eye examination, clear media, and low or insignificant refractive errors (myopia less than -6.00 diopters). In preverbal children, fixation behavior, preferential looking and Allen chart were used instead of Snellen visual acuity measurement. In order to avoid the influence of lenticular nuclear sclerosis, only patients with apparently clear lens on dilated biomicroscopy were included. Individuals with optic nerve disease, neurological impairment, systemic diseases, or a family history of heritable retinal disorders were excluded. No subject was on long-term medications. All ERG measurements were performed at the Visual Electrophysiology Unit of Rasoul-Akram Hospital. The Institutional Review Board of the hospital approved the study and informed consent was obtained from study subjects.

Recording procedures adhered to a recommended international standard for clinical electrophysiological measurements.6 Pupils were fully dilated using 1% tropicamide and 2.5% phenylephrine eye drops. Silver/nylon fiber electrodes (DTL, Laird Technologies, Sauquoit Inc. Scranton, USA) were used. The active electrode was placed over the middle third of the lower eyelid of each eye. ERG recording in children was performed following oral intake of chloral hydrate for sedation. ERG recordings were obtained on both eyes. The ISCEV-ERG GF program which is an integrated part of the system (Roland Consult, Electrophysiologic Diagnostic Systems, Wiesbaden, Germany) was used to record standard ERGs. Stimulation was performed using a full field flash Ganzfeld stimulator (Roland Consult). All responses were differentially amplified, displayed on an oscilloscope, digitized and stored on a compact disc. An adjustable voltage window was used to reject records contaminated by artifacts. Dark adapted ERG responses were obtained after a minimum of 30 minutes of dark adaptation and included an isolated rod, standard flash (maximal) response, and oscillatory potentials. Light adapted responses included a single white flash and 30-Hz flicker.

For each of the five stimuli, right and left eyes were individually tested and their data was processed separately. Thereafter, responses of both eyes for each stimulus were averaged to determine the individual subject’s data. The subjects were divided into 8 age strata with 10- year intervals; within each age group, the median and range were calculated for each parameter. Average amplitudes and implicit times were analyzed using t-test and ANOVA.

RESULTS

Implicit times and amplitudes of ERG are stratified by gender and age groups in Table 1 to 4. No significant difference was found between right and left eye measurements by gender and age. There was also no significant difference between male and female ERG amplitudes and implicit times within different age groups. However, amplitude values were significantly decreased and implicit time was significantly increased in both genders in the 70-80 year age group as compared to other age groups (P=0.04 and P=0.03 respectively).

Table 1.

Median and 95% confidence interval for ERG amplitude (microvolt) in male subjects

Age 1–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 51–60 61–70 71–80

Eye Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left
a-wave rod 72 69 74 75 73 71 76 74 72 74 77 72 73 71 65 66
response 42–95 45–95 48–92 46–97 41–92 43–89 48–96 41–89 39–94 42–96 38–88 38–91 37–99 41–89 34–82 36–84

b-wave rod 159 157 168 167 166 164 135 132 128 131 145 142 143 144 125 128
response 85–270 98–280 102–290 105–308 105–310 95–320 82–50 81–262 85–292 81–305 85–301 87–265 92–251 89–249 71–225 69–235

a-wave max 231 228 226 221 225 228 195 192 198 201 187 192 191 189 173 174
response 125–410 135–390 131–310 125–370 131–420 135–440 145–360 138–380 128–320 125–350 135–305 128–291 135–258 131–301 127–310 125–280

b-wave max 380 382 390 385 405 402 390 398 408 410 412 415 398 402 375 378
response 275–520 285–530 305–610 295–630 315–790 305–810 295–710 305–740 295–590 285–610 305–591 301–605 298–450 282–585 295–510 285–521

OP2 37
23–67
35
22–62
38
21–72
41
25–68
42
27–58
39
25–61
34
29–59
32
37–61
33
22–62
34
24–58
34
21–62
32
25–72
33
25–56
35
21–62
32
22–42
30
21–48

N1-P1 85
52–105
87
48–1050
92
51–148
89
55–161
95
45–165
92
47–138
89
41–161
91
48–159
84
52–158
83
58–135
94
49–145
96
51–110
89
48–115
92
47–125
81
42–138
79
45–145

30- Hz flicker 95
51–201
97
58–195
105
62–210
103
57–198
112
51–205
110
54–215
107
48–217
109
51–205
99
47–201
98
49–182
102
51–275
101
48–201
95
48–165
98
47–175
85
45–151
83
48–161

a-wave cone 37 38 36 35 38 37 34 34 33 34 30 31 31 31 29 30
response 22–75 21–69 25–85 22–87 25–79 31–67 29–71 28–75 21–82 24–65 25–75 23–73 25–69 27–79 21–49 23–51

b-wave cone 157 160 161 162 148 149 158 157 156 155 161 162 153 152 140 138
response 88–240 87–225 89–285 81–245 89–251 95–245 85–225 87–231 91–245 92–251 87–215 89–225 75–215 71–210 55–195 58–192

ERG, electroretinogram; Max, maximum; OP, oscillatory potential; N1-P1, interval between first negative and positive waves.

Table 4.

Median and 95% confidence interval for ERG implicit time (milliseconds) in female subjects

Age 1–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 51–60 61–70 71–80

Eye Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left
a-wave rod 40 39 42 42 21 21 21 20 44 43 41 43 42 41 47 46
response 30–65 28–64 28–62 28–65 15–24 16–25 15–26 14–25 28–64 29–71 28–69 28–66 31–65 31–62 30–69 31–72

b-wave rod 86 87 80 79 83 83 87 86 92 95 97 97 90 91 98 98
response 68–97 67–105 71–98 69–97 72–103 71–99 69–97 70–99 72–103 67–98 72–106 71–99 72–99 78–105 75–106 76–108

a-wave max 20 20 17 18 21 21 20 23 24 24 21 21 24 24 25 25
response 15–24 16–26 14–20 14–22 16–25 15–26 14–25 16–25 14–27 14–27 17–24 15–25 14–26 16–26 19–29 20–28

b-wave max 42 43 39 41 41 42 45 43 44 44 43 42 43 43 48 48
response 32–46 25–47 34–45 33–45 34–48 33–49 32–48 34–51 35–51 34–50 36–48 33–49 34–51 35–53 37–55 36–54

OP N2 14
12–17
14
12–16
13
12–16
14
12–17
15
13–18
14
12–16
14
12–16
15
14–17
13
12–15
15
13–18
16
13–17
15
14–16
16
13–17
15
13–16
16
15–19
18
15–20

OP P2 30
8–33
30
28–32
29
28–32
31
27–33
29
28–32
30
29–31
29
28–31
29
28–33
31
28–32
31
28–33
31
29–33
32
09–33
30
29–32
29
28–32
32
29–34
32
30–34

a-wave cone 14 14 14 15 15 14 15 15 16 15 14 14 14 15 17 17
response 13–17 12–16 13–18 14–17 14–16 13–17 13–18 14–18 14–18 13–18 13–16 13–17 13–16 13–18 14–19 14–18

b-wave cone 30 30 30 31 31 32 32 31 31 30 31 30 32 31 33 32
response 28–31 24–33 28–33 28–33 29–33 29–34 29–33 29–32 28–32 28–32 29–33 29–33 30–34 29–33 30–34 30–33

30-Hz N1 14
12–17
14
12–16
13
12–16
13
11–15
13
12–14
13
12–15
14
12–15
13
12–15
14
13–15
14
12–16
13
12–16
13
12–16
14
12–15
13
13–17
15
13–17
15
12–17

30-Hz P1 25
23–28
25
23–29
26
24–29
26
24–28
29
27–32
26
23–28
25
24–30
26
25–29
26
25–31
27
24–30
26
24–29
26
24–29
27
24–30
26
25–30
28
25–32
27
25–32

ERG, electroretinogram; Max, maximum; N1, first negative wave; P1, first positive wave; OP N2, oscillatory potential-second negative wave; OP P2, oscillatory potential-second positive wave.

DISCUSSION

This study provides normal ranges for ERG responses in different age groups in an Iranian population. All procedures were performed as recommended by the International Standardization Committee.6 Our study size (170 individuals) was much larger than certain studies reporting normal ERG values.13 ERG measurements obtained herein show a difference of 5-15% in amplitude and 15-20% in implicit time in comparison to ISCEV reported normal values.13 Since we eliminated confounding factors affecting ERG amplitude and implicit time such as refractive errors, intraocular pressure, media clarity, systemic medications and retinal diseases,6-11 the ethnicity of studied subjects may account for the observed difference.

We paid particular attention to age as a variable reported to be associated with a decrease in full-field ERG responses.11,12 The reason for decrease in ERG amplitude in the elderly is not well understood. Although our study subjects were clinically normal, subclinical pathologic conditions cannot be ruled out. Factors such as subtle preretinal media changes or reduction in photopigment optical density11, and bipolar or Muller cell death in the ageing retina could be the reason for the decline in amplitude with increasing age.14

A statistically significant effect of gender on ERG recordings has been reported8,1 but, we did not observe any difference between male and female subjects in our study. Many technical factors such as electrode placement, integrity of the ocular surface and pupil size may affect interocular difference in ERG amplitudes, however, in our series no significant difference was found between right and left eyes. Our results support the findings of Rotenstreich et al15 who found small interocular differences in ERG b-wave amplitudes for five different stimulus responses.

Specific amplitude and implicit time values for ERG will probably differ among different laboratories due to minor variations in recording electrodes, equipment and protocol.6 Nevertheless, the present data were obtained under rigidly controlled conditions and can be used as a basis for comparison in our country.

Table 2.

Median and 95% confidence interval for ERG amplitude (microvolt) in female subjects

Age 1–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 51–60 61–70 71–80

Eye Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left
a-wave rod 70 71 72 74 70 73 75 73 71 73 71 72 74 73 67 65
response 40–97 42–93 47–94 46–97 41–100 40–97 45–97 41–92 38–95 39–96 37–91 39–95 38–92 41–96 32–92 31–96

b-wave rod 157 159 166 168 165 163 141 144 132 134 141 138 141 143 127 125
response 85–281 92–275 102–295 97–310 97–312 98–322 85–272 87–305 89–292 91–310 87–298 85–265 91–278 89–257 71–251 69–261

a-wave max 234 229 222 226 229 229 199 201 201 203 191 189 189 192 175 171
response 118–398 125–405 138–435 121–375 135–440 128–425 125–375 119–385 125–352 127–354 125–315 128–310 132–298 125–297 125–305 135–295

b-wave max 375 380 392 387 407 401 395 397 407 409 415 410 395 399 374 387
response 255–531 275–525 302–625 295–625 295–791 295–810 285–712 275–745 285–610 280–625 275–615 295–595 285–550 282–610 285–525 275–521

OP2 36
21–65
37
22–67
39
24–72
39
25–68
42
21–67
41
24–71
35
23–69
32
23–71
32
23–68
33
21–69
33
22–59
34
23–63
31
21–58
33
22–56
34
21–45
32
21–46

N1-p1 87
52–110
86
48–158
94
48–165
91
47–159
93
51–165
90
46–162
88
48–148
91
51–161
83
55–149
84
48–158
93
47–161
98
48–175
90
51–158
91
52–161
83
41–148
79
45–145

30-Hz flicker 94
48–210
97
52–197
104
51–211
105
49–215
114
47–195
110
52–215
106
54–225
110
47–201
97
49–98
99
47–211
103
57–217
100
47–175
98
48–185
95
49–165
84
44–165
85
45–171

a-wave cone 36 38 37 36 36 35 33 34 34 33 29 30 31 31 28 31
response 21–87 22–69 24–87 22–91 24–82 32–65 29–78 26–78 22–85 23–66 22–74 22–75 24–71 24–79 21–52 21–49

b–wave cone 156 159 162 161 149 151 156 158 157 158 160 162 155 151 138 139
response 85–245 84–239 84–262 85–252 70–251 86–245 87–235 85–241 251–79 89–242 91–258 85–245 87–235 78–215 58–198 56–197

ERG, electroretinogram; Max, maximum; OP, oscillatory potential; N1-P1, interval between first negative and positive waves.

Table 3.

Median and 95% confidence interval for ERG implicit time (milliseconds) in male subjects

Age 1–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 51–60 61–70 71–80

Eye Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left
a-wave rod 30 40 43 42 38 37 42 44 43 42 41 44 42 41 46 47
response 29–63 28–65 31–62 28–61 29–66 27–64 27–64 29–71 31–68 32–71 31–68 29–66 30–69 31–68 28–72 32–71

b-wave rod 86 88 79 81 83 82 88 86 92 95 88 96 89 92 99 99
response 68–98 59–105 72–99 69–98 71–102 72–98 69–96 68–97 70–98 72–102 68–98 72–105 71–101 72–99 75–105 78–108

a-wave max 19 20 16 18 20 21 22 21 24 23 22 21 24 23 25 25
response 15–25 14–24 13–33 14–25 15–24 15–26 14–24 14–25 15–26 14–25 15–24 15–24 14–26 18–26 20–28 20–27

b-wave max 41 43 49 41 42 41 45 42 44 43 42 43 44 42 48 49
response 34–35 33–46 34–43 33–48 32–49 34–49 32–51 32–49 33–51 32–51 34–50 33–48 34–51 35–51 36–54 37–54

OP N2 13
12–16
14
12–16
14
12–15
15
13–17
14
12–16
13
12–15
15
13–16
14
12–16
16
13–18
15
13–17
15
13–16
15
13–17
16
14–18
15
13–17
17
14–19
18
15–20

OP P2 31
28–32
30
28–32
29
28–31
31
29–32
28
27–31
30
28–31
29
28–32
30
29–32
31
29–33
32
30–33
30
28–32
29
27–32
30
29–32
31
29–33
32
30–34
32
30–35

a-wave cone 15 14 14 15 15 16 15 16 15 14 15 15 15 16 16 17
response 13–16 13–16 13–16 13–17 12–17 13–17 13–17 14–18 13–16 13–17 13–17 14–17 13–17 14–18 14–18 14–19

b-wave cone 30 31 31 30 32 31 32 32 31 30 31 31 31 28 32 32
response 28–32 28–33 29–32 28–31 30–33 29–32 30–33 28–32 28–32 28–31 29–32 29–33 28–32 23–30 28–33 20–33

30-Hz N1 14
12–15
13
12–16
13
12–16
12
11–15
13
12–14
14
12–15
13
12–15
14
12–16
14
13–16
14
12–16
13
12–16
14
13–16
14
13–16
14
13–16
15
13–17
14
13–17

30-Hz P1 26
23–28
26
23–29
26
25–29
26
24–29
27
24–31
25
23–29
26
23–30
26
24–29
27
24–31
27
25–31
26
24–29
27
25–31
26
24–29
30
24–36
27
25–32
28
25–32

ERG, electroretinogram; Max, maximum; N1, first negative wave; P1, first positive wave; OP N2, oscillatory potential-second negative wave; OP P2, oscillatory potential-second positive wave.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Weinstein GW, Odom JV, Cavender S. Visually evoked potentials and electroretinography in neurological evaluation. Neurol Clin. 1991;9:225–242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Celesia GG, Bodis-Wollner I, Chatrian GE, Harding GFA, Sokol S, Spekreijse H. Recommended standards for electroretinograms and visual evoked potentials. Report of an IFCN committee. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1993;87:421–436. doi: 10.1016/0013-4694(93)90157-q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kriss A, Jeffrey B, Taylor D. The electroretinogram in infants and young children. J Clin Neurophysiol. 1992;9:373–393. doi: 10.1097/00004691-199207010-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Jacobi PC, Miliczek KD, Zrenner E. Experiences with the international standard for clinical electroretinography: normative values for clinical practice, interindividual and intraindividual variations and possible extensions. Doc Ophthalmol. 1993;85:95–114. doi: 10.1007/BF01371126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Marmor MF, Arden GB, Nilsson SEG, Zrenner E. Standard for clinical electroretinography. Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107:816–819. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1989.01070010838024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Marmor MF, Holder GE, Seeliger MW, Yamamoto S. Standard for clinical electroretinography (2004 update) Doc Ophthalmol. 2004;108:107–114. doi: 10.1023/b:doop.0000036793.44912.45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Briegell M, Bach M, Moskowitz A, Robson J. Guidelines for calibration of stimulus and recording parameters used in clinical electrophysiology of vision, calibration standard committee of international society for clinical electrophysiology of vision (ISCEV) Doc Ophthalmol. 2003;107:185–193. doi: 10.1023/a:1026244901657. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zeidler I. The clinical electroretinogram IX. The normal electroretinogram. Value of the b-potential in different age groups and its differences in men and women. . Acta Ophthalmol. 1959;37:294–301. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.1959.tb03437.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Pallin O. The influence of axial length of the eye on the size of the recorded b-potential in the clinical single-flash electroretinogram. Acta Ophthalmol. 1969;101:1–57. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Perlman I, Meyer E, Haim T, Zonis S. Retinal function in high refractive error assessed electroretinographically. Br J Ophthalmol. 1984;68:79–84. doi: 10.1136/bjo.68.2.79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Birch DC, Anderson JL. Standardized full-field electroretinography Normal values and their variations with age. Arch Ophthalmol. 1992;110:1571–1576. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1992.01080230071024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Weleber RG. The effect of age on human cone and rod Ganzfeld electroretinograms Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1981;20:392–399. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Marmor MF, Zrenner E. (International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision). Standard for clinical electroretinography (1999 Update) Doc Ophthalmol. 1999;97:143–156. doi: 10.1023/a:1002016531591. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Dorey CK, Wu G, Ebenstein D, Garsd A, Weiter JJ. Cell loss in the aging retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1989;30:1691–1699. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Rotenstreich Y, Fishman GA, Anderson R J, Birch DG. Interocular amplitude differences of the full field electroretinogram in normal subjects. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87:1268–1271. doi: 10.1136/bjo.87.10.1268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research are provided here courtesy of Ophthalmic Research Center

RESOURCES