Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

On and off responses of the photopic fullfield ERG in normal subjects and glaucoma patients

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent studies suggest a diagnostic value of the photopic negative response (PhNR) with a long-duration stimulus. The aim of this study was to record the on and off responses of the photopic fullfield electroretinogram (ERG) in normal subjects and glaucoma patients. We focused on different waves of the responses after onset and offset of the long-duration stimulus ERG. Photopic fullfield ERGs were recorded in response to a white bright LED flash on a white 20 cd/m2 background. Stimulus luminances were 40, 60 and 80 cd/m2. Responses were averaged using a flash duration of 240 ms and an offset period of 500 ms. We examined 19 healthy subjects, 27 patients with glaucomatous optic disc atrophy and 7 ocular hypertensive patients. The amplitudes and implicit times of the on and off responses of the human ERG depended on flash luminance. Comparing patients with glaucoma and healthy subjects for the 60 cd/m² flash, there was a significant change in the PhNRs (at onset: P < 0.01, at offset: P < 0.001) of the d-wave and of the i-wave at offset (P < 0.01). No significant difference was found for peak times of the fullfield ERG and for a- and b-wave amplitudes. PhNR amplitudes were significantly correlated with mean thickness of retinal nerve fibre layer as measured with OCT. In comparison with the normal photopic long-flash ERG, glaucoma patients showed changes in the PhNR amplitude following stimulus onset and in waves following stimulus offset.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Marmor MF, Fulton AB, Holder GE, Miyake Y, Brigell M, Bach M (2009) ISCEV standard for fullfield clinical electroretinography (2008 update). Doc Ophthalmol 118(1):69–77. doi:10.1007/s10633-008-9155-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sieving PA (1993) Photopic on- and off-pathway abnormalities in retinal dystrophies. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 91:701–773

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kondo M, Piao CH, Tanikawa A, Horiguchi M, Terasaki H, Miyake Y (2000) Amplitude decrease of photopic ERG b-wave at higher stimulus intensities in humans. Jpn J Ophthalmol 44(1):20–28. doi:S0021-5155(99)00172-0[pii]

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sustar M, Hawlina M, Brecelj J (2006) On- and off-response of the photopic electroretinogram in relation to stimulus characteristics. Doc Ophthalmol 113(1):43–52. doi:10.1007/s10633-006-9013-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bush RA, Sieving PA (1994) A proximal retinal component in the primate photopic ERG a-wave. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 35(2):635–645

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ueno S, Kondo M, Ueno M, Miyata K, Terasaki H, Miyake Y (2006) Contribution of retinal neurons to d-wave of primate photopic electroretinograms. Vision Res 46(5):658–664. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2005.05.026S0042-6989(05)00269-5[pii]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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(6):1124–1136

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Viswanathan S, Frishman LJ, Robson JG (2000) The uniform field and pattern ERG in macaques with experimental glaucoma: removal of spiking activity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41(9):2797–2810

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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(2):514–522

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gotoh Y, Machida S, Tazawa Y (2004) Selective loss of the photopic negative response in patients with optic nerve atrophy. Arch Ophthalmol 122(3):341–346. doi:10.1001/archopht.122.3.341122/3/341[pii]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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(8):2205–2211

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hanitzsch R (1966) ERG-Veränderungen an isolierten Netzhäuten glaukomerkrankter Augen. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 170(4):342–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Horn FK, Wakili N, Junemann AM, Korth M (2002) Testing for glaucoma with frequency-doubling perimetry in normals, ocular hypertensives, and glaucoma patients. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 240(8):658–665. doi:10.1007/s00417-002-0512-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jonas JB, Gusek GC, Naumann GO (1988) Optic disc morphometry in chronic primary open-angle glaucoma. I. Morphometric intrapapillary characteristics. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 226(6):522–530

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Jonas JB, Budde WM, Panda-Jonas S (1999) Ophthalmoscopic evaluation of the optic nerve head. Surv Ophthalmol 43(4):293–320. doi:S0039625798000496[pii]

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Link B, Ruhl S, Peters A, Junemann A, Horn FK (2006) Pattern reversal ERG and VEP: comparison of stimulation by led, monitor and a maxwellian-view system. Doc Ophthalmol 112(1):1–11. doi:10.1007/s10633-005-5865-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Marmor MF, Holder GE, Seeliger MW, Yamamoto S (2004) Standard for clinical electroretinography (2004 update). Doc Ophthalmol 108(2):107–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rangaswamy NV, Shirato S, Kaneko M, Digby BI, Robson JG, Frishman LJ (2007) Effects of spectral characteristics of Ganzfeld stimuli on the photopic negative response (PhNR) of the ERG. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48(10):4818–4828. doi:10.1167/iovs.07-021848/10/4818[pii]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Roy Stat Soc 57:125–133

    Google Scholar 

  20. 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(5):2201–2207. doi:10.1167/iovs.07-088749/5/2201[pii]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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(10):3827–3837. doi:10.1167/iovs.04-045845/10/3827[pii]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sustar M, Stirn-Kranjc B, Hawlina M, Brecelj J (2008) Photopic on- and off-responses in complete type of congenital stationary night blindness in relation to stimulus intensity. Doc Ophthalmol 117(1):37–46. doi:10.1007/s10633-007-9101-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wakili N, Horn FK, Junemann AG, Nguyen NX, Mardin CY, Korth M, Kremers J (2008) The photopic negative response of the blue-on-yellow flash-electroretinogram in glaucomas and normal subjects. Doc Ophthalmol 117(2):147–154. doi:10.1007/s10633-008-9116-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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(2):202–208. doi:10.1136/bjo.2009.161166bjo2009.161166[pii]

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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(8):3544–3550. doi:10.1167/iovs.08-1798iovs.08-1798[pii]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rosolen SG, Rigaudiere F, LeGargasson JF, Chalier C, Rufiange M, Racine J, Joly S, Lachapelle P (2004) Comparing the photopic ERG i-wave in different species. Vet Ophthalmol 7(3):189–192. doi:10.1111/j.1463-5224.2004.04022.xVOP04022[pii]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. North RV, Jones AL, Drasdo N, Wild JM, Morgan JE (2010) Electrophysiological evidence of early functional damage in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 51(2):1216–1222. doi:10.1167/iovs.09-3409iovs.09-3409[pii]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Koh AH, Hogg CR, Holder GE (2001) The incidence of negative ERG in clinical practice. Doc Ophthalmol 102(1):19–30

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Matsumoto CS, Shinoda K, Yamada K, Nakatsuka K (2009) Photopic negative response reflects severity of ocular circulatory damage after central retinal artery occlusion. Ophthalmologica 223(6):362–369. doi:10.1159/000227782000227782[pii]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Audo I, Robson AG, Holder GE, Moore AT (2008) The negative ERG: clinical phenotypes and disease mechanisms of inner retinal dysfunction. Surv Ophthalmol 53(1):16–40. doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2007.10.010S0039-6257(07)00257-3[pii]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cursiefen C, Korth M, Horn FK (2001) The negative response of the flash electroretinogram in glaucoma. Doc Ophthalmol 103(1):1–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Drasdo N, Aldebasi YH, Chiti Z, Mortlock KE, Morgan JE, North RV (2001) The s-cone PhNR and pattern ERG in primary open angle glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42(6):1266–1272

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Chen H, Wu D, Huang S, Yan H (2006) The photopic negative response of the flash electroretinogram in retinal vein occlusion. Doc Ophthalmol 113(1):53–59. doi:10.1007/s10633-006-9015-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The work was supported by German Research Council (DFG): grant KR 1317/9-1 and SFB 539. Jan Kremers is fellow in the Excellence Program of the Hertie Foundation.

Conflict of interest

The authors indicate no financial conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology and University Eye Hospital, Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Schwabachanlage 6, 91054, Erlangen, Germany

    Folkert K. Horn, Kristina Gottschalk, Christian Y. Mardin, Gobinda Pangeni, Anselm G. Jünemann & Jan Kremers

Authors
  1. Folkert K. Horn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristina Gottschalk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christian Y. Mardin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gobinda Pangeni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anselm G. Jünemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jan Kremers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Folkert K. Horn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Horn, F.K., Gottschalk, K., Mardin, C.Y. et al. On and off responses of the photopic fullfield ERG in normal subjects and glaucoma patients. Doc Ophthalmol 122, 53–62 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-011-9258-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-011-9258-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation