Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of cathode ray tube and liquid crystal display stimulators for use in multifocal VEP

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the modified signal-to-noise ratio (SNR*) of multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) responses elicited by a cathode ray tube (CRT) and liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor in normal subjects.

Methods

An LCD monitor and CRT monitor were luminance and contrast matched. Luminance stability and the effect of viewing angle on luminance and contrast was measured for both screens. The SNR* of mfVEP responses from 15 normal subjects was compared between the stimulators using repeated measures analysis of variance.

Results

The CRT monitor took 10 min from switch on to reach the desired luminance compared to 60 min for the LCD monitor. LCD luminance was sensitive to variations in ambient temperature, fluctuating by 10 cd/m−2 over approximately 20–27 °C, whereas CRT luminance was stable. Luminance variation from the centre to the edge of the CRT screen was 8 % when viewed perpendicularly and 28 % when viewed at an angle of 25°, compared to 24 and 46 %, respectively, for the LCD screen. Contrast was >94 % and varied by <3 % across both monitors for both viewing conditions. There was no significant difference in SNR* between responses elicited by the two stimulators (p = 0.76).

Conclusions

CRT and LCD stimulators elicited mfVEP responses with similar SNR* in normal subjects. This study highlighted practical issues with the use of LCD monitors as visual stimulators, particularly with regard to warm-up time, luminance stability and luminance uniformity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. \({\text{Contrast}} = \frac{{L_{\hbox{max} } - L_{\hbox{min} } }}{{L_{\hbox{max} } + L_{\hbox{min} } }} \times 100\%\). L max is the luminance of the white, or ‘on’, elements and L min the luminance of the black, or ‘off’, elements.

References

  1. Husain AM, Hayes S, Young M, Shah D (2009) Visual evoked potentials with CRT and LCD monitors: when newer is not better. Neurology 72(2):162–164. doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000339041.29147.5f

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Karanjia R, Brunet DG, ten Hove MW (2009) Optimization of visual evoked potential (VEP) recording systems. Can J Neurol Sci 36(1):89–92

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nagy BV, Gemesi S, Heller D, Magyar A, Farkas A, Abraham G, Varsanyi B (2011) Comparison of pattern VEP results acquired using CRT and TFT stimulators in the clinical practice. Doc Ophthalmol 122(3):157–162. doi:10.1007/s10633-011-9270-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tello C, De Moraes CG, Prata TS, Derr P, Patel J, Siegfried J, Liebmann JM, Ritch R (2010) Repeatability of short-duration transient visual evoked potentials in normal subjects. Doc Ophthalmol 120(3):219–228. doi:10.1007/s10633-010-9216-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Matsumoto CS, Shinoda K, Matsumoto H, Funada H, Minoda H, Mizota A (2013) Liquid crystal display screens as stimulators for visually evoked potentials: flash effect due to delay in luminance changes. Doc Ophthalmol. doi:10.1007/s10633-013-9387-9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Matsumoto CSSK, Matsumoto H, Funada H, Sasaki K, Minoda H, Mizota A (2014) Comparisons of pattern visually evoked potentials elicited by different response time liquid crystal display screens. Ophthalmic Res 51(3):117–123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Keating D, Parks S, Malloch C, Evans A (2001) A comparison of CRT and digital stimulus delivery methods in the multifocal ERG. Doc Ophthalmol 102(2):95–114

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kaltwasser C, Horn FK, Kremers J, Juenemann A (2008) A comparison of the suitability of cathode ray tube (CRT) and liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors as visual stimulators in mfERG diagnostics. Doc Ophthalmol. doi:10.1007/s10633-008-9152-7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Odom JV, Bach M, Brigell M, Holder GE, McCulloch DL, Tormene AP, Vaegan (2009) ISCEV standard for clinical visual evoked potentials (2009 update). Doc Ophthalmol 120(1):111–119. doi:10.1007/s10633-009-9195-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Keating D, Parks S (2006) Multifocal techniques. In: Heckenlively JR, Arden GB (eds) Principles and practice of clinical electrophysiology of vision, vol 1, 2nd edn. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, pp 319–340

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fortune B, Demirel S, Bui BV (2009) Multifocal visual evoked potential responses to pattern-reversal, pattern-onset, pattern-offset, and sparse pulse stimuli. Vis Neurosci 26(2):227–235. doi:10.1017/S0952523808080954

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. James AC, Ruseckaite R, Maddess T (2005) Effect of temporal sparseness and dichoptic presentation on multifocal visual evoked potentials. Vis Neurosci 22(1):45–54. doi:10.1017/S0952523805221053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jasper H (1958) The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 10(1):371–375

    Google Scholar 

  14. Zhang X, Hood DC, Chen CS, Hong JE (2002) A signal-to-noise analysis of multifocal VEP responses: an objective definition for poor records. Doc Ophthalmol 104(3):287–302

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Brigell M, Bach M, Barber C, Moskowitz A, Robson J (2003) Guidelines for calibration of stimulus and recording parameters used in clinical electrophysiology of vision. Doc Ophthalmol 107(2):185–193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lovasik JV, Ahmedbhai N (1985) Stimulus contaminants in visual electrophysiology. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 62(5):334–343

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Elze T (2010) Achieving precise display timing in visual neuroscience experiments. J Neurosci Methods 191(2):171–179. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.06.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Professor Sarah Lewis for statistical advice. Ms Elaine Blackshaw for clinical governance advice and monitoring. The reviewers for making their valuable critique. This work was supported by the Nottingham University Hospitals Charity.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Derby Road, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK

    Marÿke Fox, Colin Barber & Alan Perkins

  2. Tennent Institute of Ophthalmology, Gartnavel General Hospital, 1053 Great Western Road, Glasgow, G12 0YN, UK

    David Keating

  3. Radiological and Imaging Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Derby Road, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK

    Alan Perkins

Authors
  1. Marÿke Fox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Colin Barber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Keating
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alan Perkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marÿke Fox.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fox, M., Barber, C., Keating, D. et al. Comparison of cathode ray tube and liquid crystal display stimulators for use in multifocal VEP. Doc Ophthalmol 129, 115–122 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-014-9451-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-014-9451-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation