Comparison of CRT and LCD monitors for objective estimation of visual acuity using the sweep VEP.

Purpose: To investigate the applicability of liquid crystal displays (LCD) as suitable replacement for cathode ray tube monitors (CRT) as stimulator for the sweep VEP for estimating visual acuity.

Methods: In a first experiment, sweep VEPs were recorded in 13 healthy volunteers with best-corrected visual acuity with an LCD and a CRT monitor, respectively. Time-to-peak after stimulus and peak-to-trough amplitudes as well as the visual acuity, estimated using a second-order polynomial and the modified Ricker model, were compared between both monitor types. In a second experiment, sweep VEPs were recorded in six healthy volunteers with two levels of stimulus contrast using artificially reduced visual acuities as well as best-corrected with the same monitors as in the first experiment and additionally, a modern LCD gaming monitor with a response time of 1 ms. Time-to-peak after stimulus and peak-to-trough amplitudes were compared between the different combinations of monitors and contrasts. Finally, visual acuities estimated using the modified Ricker model were compared to subjective visual acuities determined using the Freiburg Visual Acuity and Contrast Test (FrACT).

Results: In the first experiment, the time-to-peak after stimulus presentation was statistically significantly delayed for LCD displays (mean difference [confidence interval]: 60.0 [54.0, 65.9] ms; t(516) = 19.7096, p < 0.0001). Likewise, peak-to-trough amplitudes were statistically significantly smaller for the LCD stimulator, however, not clinically relevant (mean difference [confidence interval]: - 0.89 [- 1.59, - 0.20] µV; t(516) =  - 2.5351, p = 0.0115). No statistically significant effect of the monitor type on the estimated visual acuity was found for neither method, second-order polynomial, nor the modified Ricker model. In the second experiment, statistically significant delays of the time-to-peak after stimulus onset were found for all combinations of monitor and contrast compared to the CRT monitor. A statistically significant, but not clinically relevant, difference of the peak-to-trough amplitudes was only found between the CRT monitor and the LCD gaming monitor (mean difference [confidence interval]: 2.6 [1.2, 4.0] µV; t(814) = 4.66, p < 0.0001). Visual acuities estimated from LCD stimulation significantly underestimated the subjective visual acuity up to 0.2 logMAR using the conversion formula of the first experiment. No statistically significant difference was found when using conversion formulas adjusted for each combination of monitor and contrast.

Conclusions: Based on the results of this study, LCD monitors may substitute CRT monitors for presenting the stimuli for the sweep VEP to objectively estimate visual acuity. Nevertheless, it is advisable to perform a calibration and to collect normative data of healthy volunteers using best-corrected and artificially reduced visual acuity for establishing a conversion formula between sweep VEP outcome and the subjective visual acuity before replacing a CRT with an LCD stimulator.