The Value of VR-PVEP in Objective Evaluation of Monocular Refractive Visual Impairment.

OBJECTIVES

To study the virtual reality-pattern visual evoked potential (VR-PVEP) P100 waveform characteristics of monocular visual impairment with different impaired degrees under simultaneous binocular perception and monocular stimulations.

METHODS

A total of 55 young volunteers with normal vision (using decimal recording method, far vision ≥0.8 and near vision ≥0.5) were selected to simulate three groups of monocular refractive visual impairment by interpolation method. The sum of near and far vision ≤0.2 was Group A, the severe visual impairment group; the sum of near and far vision <0.8 was Group B, the moderate visual impairment group; and the sum of near and far vision ≥0.8 was Group C, the mild visual impairment group. The volunteers' binocular normal visions were set as the control group. The VR-PVEP P100 peak times measured by simultaneous binocular perception and monocular stimulation were compared at four spatial frequencies 16×16, 24×24, 32×32 and 64×64.

RESULTS

In Group A, the differences between P100 peak times of simulant visual impairment eyes and simultaneous binocular perception at 24×24, 32×32 and 64×64 spatial frequencies were statistically significant (<0.05); and the P100 peak time of normal vision eyes at 64×64 spatial frequency was significantly different from the simulant visual impairment eyes (<0.05). In Group B, the differences between P100 peak times of simulant visual impairment eyes and simultaneous binocular perception at 16×16, 24×24 and 64×64 spatial frequencies were statistically significant (<0.05); and the P100 peak time of normal vision eyes at 64×64 spatial frequency was significantly different from the simulant visual impairment eyes (<0.05). In Group C, there was no significant difference between P100 peak times of simulant visual impairment eyes and simultaneous binocular perception at all spatial frequencies (>0.05). There was no significant difference in the P100 peak times measured at all spatial frequencies between simulant visual impairment eyes and simultaneous binocular perception in the control group (>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

VR-PVEP can be used for visual acuity evaluation of patients with severe and moderate monocular visual impairment, which can reflect the visual impairment degree caused by ametropia. VR-PVEP has application value in the objective evaluation of visual function and forensic clinical identification.