Comparison of pattern VEP results acquired using CRT and TFT stimulators in the clinical practice

• Published in: Documenta ophthalmologica 2011-06, Vol.122 (3), p.157-162
• Main Authors: Nagy, Balázs Vince, Gémesi, Szabolcs, Heller, Dávid, Magyar, András, Farkas, Ágnes, Ábrahám, György, Varsányi, Balázs
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acetylcholine receptors; Acuity; Biological and medical sciences; Cathode Ray Tube; Data processing; Equipment Design; Evoked Potentials, Visual; Humans; Liquid Crystals; Medical sciences; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Models, Biological; Ophthalmology; Original Research Article; Photic Stimulation - instrumentation; Photic Stimulation - methods; Reaction Time; Reference Values; Visual evoked potentials
• ISSN: 0012-4486; 1573-2622
• DOI: 10.1007/s10633-011-9270-5

There are several electrophysiological systems available commercially. Usually, control groups are required to compare their results, due to the differences between display types. Our aim was to examine the differences between CRT and LCD/TFT stimulators used in pattern VEP responses performed according to the ISCEV standards. We also aimed to check different contrast values toward thresholds. In order to obtain more precise results, we intended to measure the intensity and temporal response characteristics of the monitors with photometric methods. To record VEP signals, a Roland RetiPort electrophysiological system was used. The pattern VEP tests were carried out according to ISCEV protocols on a CRT and a TFT monitor consecutively. Achromatic checkerboard pattern was used at three different contrast levels (maximal, 75, 25%) using 1° and 15′ check sizes. Both CRT and TFT displays were luminance and contrast matched, according to the gamma functions based on measurements at several DAC values. Monitor-specific luminance parameters were measured by means of spectroradiometric instruments. Temporal differences between the displays’ electronic and radiometric signals were measured with a device specifically built for the purpose. We tested six healthy control subjects with visual acuity of at least 20/20. The tests were performed on each subject three times on different days. We found significant temporal differences between the CRT and the LCD monitors at all contrast levels and spatial frequencies. In average, the latency times were 9.0 ms (±3.3 ms) longer with the TFT stimulator. This value is in accordance with the average of the measured TFT input–output temporal difference values (10.1 ± 2.2 ms). According to our findings, measuring the temporal parameters of the TFT monitor with an adequately calibrated measurement setup and correcting the VEP data with the resulting values, the VEP signals obtained with different display types can be transformed to be comparable.