Abstract
Along the processing chain in the visual pathway the pattern electroretinogram (PERG) is a better indicator of the peripheral function than the visual evoked potential (VEP). Therefore the PERG and the VEP will be impaired equally by disturbances before the ganglion cell layer (e.g., blurred image or retinal disease) and differently by further centrally located diseases (e.g., tumor compression of the optic nerve). Thus in patients complaining of reduced visual acuity who show disturbed VEP but a normal PERG, malingering can be definitely ruled out. Representative combinations of PERG and VEP findings are described.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agaston H. Ocular malingering. Arch Ophthalmol 1944; 31: 223–232.
Walsh FB & Hoyt WF. Clinical Neuroophthalmology, vol 3. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1969: 2532–2537.
Duke-Elder S & Abrams D. System of Ophthalmology, vol 5. London: Kimpton, 1970: 487–501.
Makabe R. Objective determination of visual acuity by means of electronystagmography. Late results. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 1984; 184: 197–199.
Copenhavener RM &Beinhocker GD. Objective visual field testing. JAMA 1963; 186: 767–772.
Bumgartner J & Epstein CM. Voluntary alteration of visual evoked potentials. Ann Neurol 1982; 12: 475–478.
Towle VL, Sutcliffe E & Sokol S. Diagnosing functional visual deficits with the P300 component of the visual evoked potential. Arch Ophthalmol 1985; 103: 47–50.
Lawwill T. The bar pattern electroretinogram. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Series 1984; 40: 1–10.
Sokol S & Moskowitz A. Effect of retinal blur on the peak latency of the pattern evoked potential. Vision Res 1981; 21: 1279–1286.
Groneberg A & Teping C. Topodiagnostik von Sehstörungen durch Ableitung retinaler und kortikaler Antworten auf Kontrastmuster. Ber Dtsch Ophthalmol Ges 1980; 77: 409–415.
Fiorentini A, Maffei L, Pirchio M, Spinelli D & Porciatti V. The ERG in response to alternating gratings in patients with diseases of the peripheral visual pathway. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1981; 21: 490–493.
Maffei L & Fiorentini A. Electroretinographic responses to alternating gratings before and after section of the optic nerve. Science 1981; 211: 953–954.
Odom JV, Maida TM & Dawson WW. Pattern evoked retinal response (PERR) in human: effects of spatial frequency, temporal frequency, luminance and defocus. Curr Eye Res 1982; 2: 99–108.
Korth M. Human fast retinal potentials and the spatial properties of a visual stimulus. Vision Res 1981; 21: 627–630.
Hess RF & Baker CL. Human pattern-evoked electroretinogram. J Neurophysiol 1984; 51: 939–951.
Florentini A, Pirchio M & Spinelli D. Development of retinal and cortical responses to pattern reversal in infants: A selective review. Behav Brain Res 1983; 10: 99–106.
Dawson WW, Trick GL & Maida TM. Evaluation of the DTL corneal electrode. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Series 1982; 31: 81–83.
Jasper HH. The ten-twenty electrode system of the international federation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1958; 10: 371–375.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Röver, J., Bach, M. Pattern electroretinogram plus visual evoked potential: A decisive test in patients suspected of malingering. Doc Ophthalmol 66, 245–251 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00145238
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00145238