{"title":"步骤VEP视力在儿童神经-眼科队列","authors":"Mackay Alison M","doi":"10.29328/journal.ijceo.1001046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Steady-state VEPs, have been used to estimate visual acuity since the 1970s and allow responses to a range of stimulus sizes to be collected rapidly- with particular utility in infants. However, the assessment of children with cortical visual impairment is a bigger challenge that lead to the development of the Step VEP. Its initial evaluation revealed that accuracy and precision were poorer for pediatric patients than for optically degraded normal adults and that it was not necessarily successful in every child. Statistical models generated the equations: VAO = 0.56 VAStep (r2 = 0.75, F = 60.93, p = 0.000) and VAPL = 0.45 VAStep (r2 = 0.82, F = 156.85, p = 0.000), supported by a recent a systematic review of VA comparisons showing that recognition VA (optotypes) agrees more closely than discrimination VA (PL) with VEP VA. In combination, Step VEPS and subjective tests allowed complete assessment in 96% of patients, with incomplete Step VEPS much more likely to be partially successful than not, and more likely to be partially successful than incomplete subjective tests. This supports the rationale that Step VEPs maintain attention by limiting the time spent stimulating away from an individual’s threshold of spatial resolution. For the small number of patients in whom VA cannot be estimated, alternative stimuli and methods of presentation are proposed.","PeriodicalId":359167,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Step VEP visual acuity in a pediatric neuro-ophthalmological cohort\",\"authors\":\"Mackay Alison M\",\"doi\":\"10.29328/journal.ijceo.1001046\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Steady-state VEPs, have been used to estimate visual acuity since the 1970s and allow responses to a range of stimulus sizes to be collected rapidly- with particular utility in infants. However, the assessment of children with cortical visual impairment is a bigger challenge that lead to the development of the Step VEP. Its initial evaluation revealed that accuracy and precision were poorer for pediatric patients than for optically degraded normal adults and that it was not necessarily successful in every child. Statistical models generated the equations: VAO = 0.56 VAStep (r2 = 0.75, F = 60.93, p = 0.000) and VAPL = 0.45 VAStep (r2 = 0.82, F = 156.85, p = 0.000), supported by a recent a systematic review of VA comparisons showing that recognition VA (optotypes) agrees more closely than discrimination VA (PL) with VEP VA. In combination, Step VEPS and subjective tests allowed complete assessment in 96% of patients, with incomplete Step VEPS much more likely to be partially successful than not, and more likely to be partially successful than incomplete subjective tests. This supports the rationale that Step VEPs maintain attention by limiting the time spent stimulating away from an individual’s threshold of spatial resolution. For the small number of patients in whom VA cannot be estimated, alternative stimuli and methods of presentation are proposed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":359167,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29328/journal.ijceo.1001046\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29328/journal.ijceo.1001046","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
摘要
自20世纪70年代以来,稳态vep已被用于估计视力,并允许快速收集对一系列刺激大小的反应-在婴儿中特别实用。然而,对皮质性视觉障碍儿童的评估是一个更大的挑战,导致了Step VEP的发展。最初的评估显示,与视力退化的正常成年人相比,儿科患者的准确性和精确性较差,并且不一定对每个儿童都成功。统计模型生成方程:VAO = 0.56 VAStep (r2 = 0.75, F = 60.93, p = 0.000)和VAPL = 0.45 VAStep (r2 = 0.82, F = 156.85, p = 0.000),最近一项VA比较的系统综述表明,识别VA(视型)与VEP VA的一致性比辨别VA (PL)更接近。综合起来,Step VEPS和主观测试允许96%的患者完成评估,不完整的Step VEPS更有可能部分成功。而且比起不完整的主观测试,更有可能部分成功。这支持了步骤vep通过限制刺激时间来保持注意力的基本原理,使其远离个体的空间分辨率阈值。对于少数不能估计VA的患者,提出了替代刺激和呈现方法。
Step VEP visual acuity in a pediatric neuro-ophthalmological cohort
Steady-state VEPs, have been used to estimate visual acuity since the 1970s and allow responses to a range of stimulus sizes to be collected rapidly- with particular utility in infants. However, the assessment of children with cortical visual impairment is a bigger challenge that lead to the development of the Step VEP. Its initial evaluation revealed that accuracy and precision were poorer for pediatric patients than for optically degraded normal adults and that it was not necessarily successful in every child. Statistical models generated the equations: VAO = 0.56 VAStep (r2 = 0.75, F = 60.93, p = 0.000) and VAPL = 0.45 VAStep (r2 = 0.82, F = 156.85, p = 0.000), supported by a recent a systematic review of VA comparisons showing that recognition VA (optotypes) agrees more closely than discrimination VA (PL) with VEP VA. In combination, Step VEPS and subjective tests allowed complete assessment in 96% of patients, with incomplete Step VEPS much more likely to be partially successful than not, and more likely to be partially successful than incomplete subjective tests. This supports the rationale that Step VEPs maintain attention by limiting the time spent stimulating away from an individual’s threshold of spatial resolution. For the small number of patients in whom VA cannot be estimated, alternative stimuli and methods of presentation are proposed.