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.1–3 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.1–4
Since 1989, the International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision (ISCEV) and the National Retinitis Pigmentosa Foundation (NRPF) have attempted to standardize ERG procedures.4–6 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.6–12
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]
