Scott E Brodie, Promie Faruque, Jorge Pincay, Mohamed Sylla, Xuan Cui, Stephanie Choi, Karen Holopigian, Vivienne Greenstein
{"title":"使用皮肤电极和隐形眼镜电极同时记录 ERG 信噪比的比较。","authors":"Scott E Brodie, Promie Faruque, Jorge Pincay, Mohamed Sylla, Xuan Cui, Stephanie Choi, Karen Holopigian, Vivienne Greenstein","doi":"10.1007/s10633-025-10003-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare signal-to-noise levels in ERG recordings obtained with contact lens electrodes and adhesive skin electrodes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>23 subjects were studied. Full-field ERGs were recorded according to ISCEV standards simultaneously with ERG-jet corneal contact lens electrodes and LKC Technologies Sensor Strip adhesive skin electrodes. B-wave amplitude or peak-to-peak amplitude was used as a measure of signal strength. Noise was estimated using the \" ± averaging method.\" Comparisons between signal strength, absolute noise levels, and signal-to-noise ratios between contact lens and skin electrodes were performed by linear regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Comparisons of signal strength for LA 3, 30-Hz, DA 0.01, and DA 3 responses, yielded regression coefficient ß values of 0.37, 0.39, 0.39, and 0.35, respectively. For the entire data set, the regression coefficient ß value was 0.36 (95% confidence limits 0.34 - 0.38). The grand average ERG noise for all ERG stimuli was 13.8 µV for contact lens electrodes and 13.0 µV for skin electrodes (not significant: p = 0.66 for paired t-test). For signal-to-noise ratios, regression ß coefficients for contact lens and adhesive skin electrodes for LA 3, 30-Hz, DA 0.01, and DA 3 stimuli were 0.25, 0.39, 0.50, and 0.36 respectively. The ß coefficient for the amalgamated data set was 0.33 (95% confidence limits 0.30- 0.36).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall ERG amplitudes obtained with skin electrodes were 1/3 those obtained with contact lens electrodes. Absolute noise levels were similar. Signal-to-noise levels with skin electrodes were 1/3 those seen with contact lens electrodes. Implications for signal-averaging in clinical applications are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":11207,"journal":{"name":"Documenta Ophthalmologica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of ERG signal-to-noise ratios in simultaneous recordings with skin electrodes and contact lens electrodes.\",\"authors\":\"Scott E Brodie, Promie Faruque, Jorge Pincay, Mohamed Sylla, Xuan Cui, Stephanie Choi, Karen Holopigian, Vivienne Greenstein\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10633-025-10003-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare signal-to-noise levels in ERG recordings obtained with contact lens electrodes and adhesive skin electrodes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>23 subjects were studied. Full-field ERGs were recorded according to ISCEV standards simultaneously with ERG-jet corneal contact lens electrodes and LKC Technologies Sensor Strip adhesive skin electrodes. B-wave amplitude or peak-to-peak amplitude was used as a measure of signal strength. Noise was estimated using the \\\" ± averaging method.\\\" Comparisons between signal strength, absolute noise levels, and signal-to-noise ratios between contact lens and skin electrodes were performed by linear regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Comparisons of signal strength for LA 3, 30-Hz, DA 0.01, and DA 3 responses, yielded regression coefficient ß values of 0.37, 0.39, 0.39, and 0.35, respectively. For the entire data set, the regression coefficient ß value was 0.36 (95% confidence limits 0.34 - 0.38). The grand average ERG noise for all ERG stimuli was 13.8 µV for contact lens electrodes and 13.0 µV for skin electrodes (not significant: p = 0.66 for paired t-test). For signal-to-noise ratios, regression ß coefficients for contact lens and adhesive skin electrodes for LA 3, 30-Hz, DA 0.01, and DA 3 stimuli were 0.25, 0.39, 0.50, and 0.36 respectively. The ß coefficient for the amalgamated data set was 0.33 (95% confidence limits 0.30- 0.36).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall ERG amplitudes obtained with skin electrodes were 1/3 those obtained with contact lens electrodes. Absolute noise levels were similar. Signal-to-noise levels with skin electrodes were 1/3 those seen with contact lens electrodes. Implications for signal-averaging in clinical applications are discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11207,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Documenta Ophthalmologica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Documenta Ophthalmologica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-025-10003-8\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Documenta Ophthalmologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-025-10003-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of ERG signal-to-noise ratios in simultaneous recordings with skin electrodes and contact lens electrodes.
Purpose: To compare signal-to-noise levels in ERG recordings obtained with contact lens electrodes and adhesive skin electrodes.
Methods: 23 subjects were studied. Full-field ERGs were recorded according to ISCEV standards simultaneously with ERG-jet corneal contact lens electrodes and LKC Technologies Sensor Strip adhesive skin electrodes. B-wave amplitude or peak-to-peak amplitude was used as a measure of signal strength. Noise was estimated using the " ± averaging method." Comparisons between signal strength, absolute noise levels, and signal-to-noise ratios between contact lens and skin electrodes were performed by linear regression.
Results: Comparisons of signal strength for LA 3, 30-Hz, DA 0.01, and DA 3 responses, yielded regression coefficient ß values of 0.37, 0.39, 0.39, and 0.35, respectively. For the entire data set, the regression coefficient ß value was 0.36 (95% confidence limits 0.34 - 0.38). The grand average ERG noise for all ERG stimuli was 13.8 µV for contact lens electrodes and 13.0 µV for skin electrodes (not significant: p = 0.66 for paired t-test). For signal-to-noise ratios, regression ß coefficients for contact lens and adhesive skin electrodes for LA 3, 30-Hz, DA 0.01, and DA 3 stimuli were 0.25, 0.39, 0.50, and 0.36 respectively. The ß coefficient for the amalgamated data set was 0.33 (95% confidence limits 0.30- 0.36).
Conclusions: Overall ERG amplitudes obtained with skin electrodes were 1/3 those obtained with contact lens electrodes. Absolute noise levels were similar. Signal-to-noise levels with skin electrodes were 1/3 those seen with contact lens electrodes. Implications for signal-averaging in clinical applications are discussed.
期刊介绍:
Documenta Ophthalmologica is an official publication of the International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision. The purpose of the journal is to promote the understanding and application of clinical electrophysiology of vision. Documenta Ophthalmologica will publish reviews, research articles, technical notes, brief reports and case studies which inform the readers about basic and clinical sciences related to visual electrodiagnosis and means to improve diagnosis and clinical management of patients using visual electrophysiology. Studies may involve animals or humans. In either case appropriate care must be taken to follow the Declaration of Helsinki for human subject or appropriate humane standards of animal care (e.g., the ARVO standards on Animal Care and Use).