Nowitzki Henrike Marie, Hoffmann Michael B, Al-Nosairy Khaldoon O
Section for Clinical and Experimental Sensory Physiology, Ophthalmology, Otto-Von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.
Center for Behavioral Brain Sciences, Magdeburg, Germany.
Doc Ophthalmol. 2025 Apr 9. doi: 10.1007/s10633-025-10014-5.
To compare the photopic negative response of the multifocal ERG (mfERG) and the multifocal pattern electroretinogram (mfPERG) using DTL electrode (E) vs skin electrode (E) in healthy young and old adults.
Ten "Young" [20-27 years] and eight "Old" [60-72 years] participants took part in this study. The electrophysiological responses were recorded binocularly using E and E. 5-way ANOVAs were applied to investigate the following factors on mfERG: i) ELECTRODE, ii) DILATATION, iii) AGE, iv) EYE, and v) ECCENTRICITY. For mfPERG, the same factors, except dilatation, were investigated applying 4-way ANOVAs. These were conducted for amplitude and peak time of different components as well as signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR).
Amplitudes of mfERG [mfPERG]-based E recording were reduced to 32-38% [37-38%] compared to E, . This corresponded to SNR reduction to 80% [60%], . E based responses had shorter peak times, by 0.2-0.5 ms for N1 and P1, , [P1: 1.5 ms, ]. Both age groups had comparable amplitudes and SNRs, but Young had shorter peak times, by 1.5-2.2 ms for N1 and P1, [3.7-4.2 ms for N1, P1, N2, ]. Compared to dilated recordings, undilated mfERG amplitudes were reduced to 47-87%, , and peak times were delayed by 2.0-11.8 ms, .
mfPERG & mfERG traces were similar for E and E. However, for skin electrodes, amplitudes and SNRs were lower and peak times shorter. E thus seem to be a viable alternative in patients in whom the use of corneal electrodes is precluded, e.g., children and disabled patients, but at the expense of SNR and with reference to E normative data.
比较在健康年轻人和老年人中使用DTL电极（E）与皮肤电极（E）时，多焦视网膜电图（mfERG）和多焦图形视网膜电图（mfPERG）的明视负反应。
10名“年轻人”（20 - 27岁）和8名“老年人”（60 - 72岁）参与了本研究。使用E和E双眼记录电生理反应。应用五因素方差分析来研究以下因素对mfERG的影响：i）电极，ii）散瞳，iii）年龄，iv）眼睛，v）离心度。对于mfPERG，应用四因素方差分析研究除散瞳外的相同因素。对不同成分的振幅、峰时以及信噪比（SNR）进行分析。
与E相比，基于mfERG [mfPERG]的E记录的振幅降低至32 - 38% [37 - 38%]，这相当于SNR降低至80% [60%]。基于E的反应峰时更短，N1和P1缩短0.2 - 0.5毫秒，[P1：1.5毫秒，]。两个年龄组的振幅和SNR相当，但年轻人的峰时更短，N1和P1缩短1.5 - 2.2毫秒，[N1、P1、N2为3.7 - 4.2毫秒，]。与散瞳记录相比，未散瞳的mfERG振幅降低至47 - 87%，峰时延迟2.0 - 11.8毫秒。
对于E和E，mfPERG和mfERG的波形相似。然而，对于皮肤电极，振幅和SNR较低，峰时较短。因此，在例如儿童和残疾患者等无法使用角膜电极的患者中，E似乎是一种可行的替代方法，但以SNR为代价，且参考E标准数据。
