모니터 종류에 따른 시각유발전위 검사의 차이점
Difference of Visual Evoked Potential Study with Different Types of Monitors
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Objective: We wanted to test that LCD monitor can be used for pattern reversal VEPs with short response time instead of standard CRT monitor. Method: In 8 normal subjects with 16 eyes, VEPs were done with CRT and response time 1 ms LCD, 5 ms LCD monitors. Latencies of P100 waves and amplitudes of N75-P100 were compared for 3 different monitor groups. Results: Mean latencies of P100 waves were 111.8 ± 6.0 ms for CRT group, 115.8 ± 5.9 ms for 1 ms LCD group and 118.5 ± 6.2 ms for 5 ms LCD group and there was significant difference between latencies of CRT and 5 ms groups (p < 0.01, post-hoc analysis). Furthermore, latency difference value from CRT group minus LCD group on each subject also showed significant difference between CRT-1 ms LCD and CRT-5 ms LCD (p < 0.01). Mean amplitudes of N75-P100 didn’t show difference between 3 monitor groups. Conclusion: Latency of P100 wave with LCD monitor with 5 ms response time is longer than that with CRT monitor and LCD monitor with 1 ms response time also showed tendency of delay. These results suggest that the ready-made reference value should not be applied to the reference range with LCD monitor even though short response time.
Abstract
Objective: We wanted to test that LCD monitor can be used for pattern reversal VEPs with short response time instead of standard CRT monitor. Method: In 8 normal subjects with 16 eyes, VEPs were done with CRT and response time 1 ms LCD, 5 ms LCD monitors. Latencies of P100 waves and amplitudes of N75-P100 were compared for 3 different monitor groups. Results: Mean latencies of P100 waves were 111.8 ± 6.0 ms for CRT group, 115.8 ± 5.9 ms for 1 ms LCD group and 118.5 ± 6.2 ms for 5 ms LCD group and there was significant difference between latencies of CRT and 5 ms groups (p < 0.01, post-hoc analysis). Furthermore, latency difference value from CRT group minus LCD group on each subject also showed significant difference between CRT-1 ms LCD and CRT-5 ms LCD (p < 0.01). Mean amplitudes of N75-P100 didn’t show difference between 3 monitor groups. Conclusion: Latency of P100 wave with LCD monitor with 5 ms response time is longer than that with CRT monitor and LCD monitor with 1 ms response time also showed tendency of delay. These results suggest that the ready-made reference value should not be applied to the reference range with LCD monitor even though short response time.
참고문헌 (6)
- Chiappa KH, "Evoked potentials in clinical medicine (first of two parts)", N Engl J Med, 306, pp.1140~1150 (1982)
- American Clinical Neurophysiology S, "Guideline 9B: Guidelines on visual evoked potentials", J Clin Neurophysiol, 23, pp.138~156 (2006)
- Husain AM, "Visual evoked potentials with CRT and LCD monitors: when newer is not better", Neurology, 72, pp.162~164 (2009)
- Matsumoto CS, "Liquid crystal display screens as stimulators for visually evoked potentials: flash effect due to delay in luminance changes", Doc Ophthalmol, 127, pp.103~112 (2013)
- Matsumoto CS, "Comparisons of pattern visually evoked potentials elicited by different response time liquid crystal display screens", Ophthalmic Res, 51, pp.117~123 (2014)
- Nagy BV, "Comparison of pattern VEP results acquired using CRT and TFT stimulators in the clinical practice", Doc Ophthalmol, 122, pp.157~162 (2011)