Comparing enfant and PowerDiva sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP) acuity estimates.

PURPOSE

Many studies have examined different variables that affect the outcome of sVEP estimated acuity. However, no studies have compared the estimated sVEP acuity between different instruments. The primary purpose of this study was to compare sVEP acuity estimates obtained with two different sVEP systems: the Enfant and the PowerDiva.

METHODS

Twenty-five normal adults with monocular acuities of 0.10 logMAR or better took part in this study. The sVEP acuities were determined with the two instruments in a single visit with the same electrode placement. For both systems, the stimuli were horizontal sine wave gratings of 80 % contrast, counterphased at 7.5 Hz, with a screen mean luminance of 100 cd/m(2). The sweep presented spatial frequencies from 3 to 36 cpd with each spatial frequency presented for 1 s. Ten presentations of the stimuli were averaged together for one acuity measurement. The acuity estimate was made with the specific instruments standard software. Two acuity measurements were made for each system and averaged together for further comparison. The acuity estimates were compared using an ANOVA, paired t tests, and Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS

The average estimated logMAR acuities with the Enfant (0.064 ± 0.069 logMAR) and PowerDiva (0.065 ± 0.115 logMAR) were not significantly different (t = 0.04, p = 0.97). Consistent with previous studies, the logMAR chart acuity (-0.086 ± 0.089 logMAR) was significantly different from the Enfant (t = 8.10, p < 0.001) and PowerDiva (t = 5.77, p < 0.001) acuity estimates. The Bland-Altman analysis for the two instruments did not indicate a bias (-0.001), and the limit of agreement was 0.227 logMAR.

CONCLUSIONS

Acuity estimates with the Enfant and PowerDiva are not significantly different for patients with normal acuity. Thus, direct comparisons between the two instruments can be made for patients with normal acuity.