Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Documenta Ophthalmol...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Documenta Ophthalmologica
Article . 1994 . Peer-reviewed
License: Springer TDM
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

The gold foil electrode in pattern electroretinography

Authors: T C, Prager; A M, Fea; W E, Sponsel; F C, Schweitzer; L, McNulty; C A, Garcia;

The gold foil electrode in pattern electroretinography

Abstract

A recent study found that the gold foil electrode produces large pattern electroretinogram amplitudes, but the test-retest reliability was low. In a three-center study, we observed that 90% of 29 patients who were tested with gold foil electrodes used three times appeared to have markedly lower amplitudes than when tested with new electrodes during the same session. Across study centers, the mean of the new electrode recordings was 3.78 microV (standard deviation, 1.13 microV), versus 2.93 microV (1.29 microV) for used electrodes. This 0.85-microV reduction (22%) was statistically significant (F = 7.10 p = 0.01). Electrodes used three times demonstrated an average change in the coefficient of variation of 14% (standard deviation/mean = coefficient of variation; new, 1.13/3.78 = 30%; used, 1.29/2.93 = 44%). Two of the study sites (Houston/Indianapolis) conducted test-retest pattern electroretinograms on a total of 18 patients and found the mean evoked potential to be 3.55 microV with new electrodes and 2.82 microV with used electrodes. The coefficient of variation for the test-retest data was 30% and 47% for new and used electrodes, respectively. Light microscopy showed small cracks on the surface of the electrode, with the number and configuration of the cracks varying in each electrode. The presence of cracks is further complicated by their proximity to the tear film. These sources of variation can result in significantly different impedances. We propose that constant flexion, as a result of patient blinking, causes cracks in the thin gold surface of the electrode. Used electrodes will produce lower pattern electroretinogram amplitudes and poor test-retest reliability.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Keywords

Adult, Male, Reproducibility of Results, Middle Aged, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Electroretinography, Equipment Reuse, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Humans, Female, Gold, Electrodes

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    7
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
7
Average
Top 10%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!