Examines visual acuity differences in nystagmus using pulsed optotypes, suggesting stimulation isn't the cause of overestimation.
Abstract Purpose Quanz et al. (2024) reported that participants with nystagmus had higher objective visual evoked potential visual acuity estimates (VAVEP) by 0.12 logMAR relative compared to standard psychophysical VA (VAPsych_Stat). The cause of this modest, but significant VAVEP overestimation remains unclear. Here we investigated its association with the pattern-pulse stimulation mode applied for steady state VEP recording for VAVEP estimation. Specifically, we tested whether psychophysical visual acuity to pulsed optotypes (VAPsych_Pulsed) also exceeds standard optotype VAPsych_Stat. Methods Twelve participants with nystagmus were included in this analysis. VAVEP was determined for pattern-pulse steady-state VEP stimulation (Quanz et al., 2024) using EP2000, psychophysical VA was determined to stationary (VAPsych_Stat) and to pulsed (VAPsych_Pulsed) Landolt-C optotypes employing a modified version of the Freiburg vision Test (FrACT). Pulsed stimulus timing was identical for VEP and VA (40 ms on and 93 ms off, i.e at 7.5 Hz). In a separate measurement, fixation stability within the central 4° was determined using microperimetry (Nidek MP-1), and the eye with the stronger fixation instability was selected for the analysis (12 eyes). LogMAR differences were assessed with a paired t-test and the correlation of fixation stability and VA differences (DVAPsych = VAPsych_Pulsed – VAPsych_Stat) was tested. Results VAPsych_Stat (0.43 ± 0.06 logMAR) and VAPsych_Pulsed did not differ from each other (0.45 ± 0.06 logMAR, P = 0.15), but from VAVEP (0.26 ± 0.08 logMAR, P = 0.02 and P = 0.01, respectively). There was no correlation of DVAPsych with fixation instability (r² = 0.002, P = 0.89). Conclusion Pulsed stimulation appears not to be the reason for the VAVEP overestimation. Further research should address whether differences in the spatial stimulus properties might be of relevance, as VAPsych is tested with optotypes, VAVEP with extended patterns.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Quanz et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: