Sains Malaysiana 43(7)(2014): 1089–1094

Electrodes for Multifocal Electroretinography (mfERG):

A Comparison of Four Electrodes Types

(Elektrod untuk Elektroretinografi Multifokal (mfERG): Perbandingan Empat Jenis Elektrod)

NORHANI MOHIDIN¹*, MAURICE K.H. YAP² & ROBERT J. JACOBS³

¹Optometry & Vision Sciences, School of Healthcare Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, 50300 Kuala Lumpur

Malaysia

²School of Optometry, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, HangHom, Kowloon

Hong Kong

³Department of Optometry & Vision Science, The University of Auckland, New Zealand

Private Bag, Auckland, New Zealand

Received: 30 January 2012/Accepted: 16 September 2013

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of four different electrode types in detecting the multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) using the visual evoked response imaging system (VERIS). Multifocal ERG of 30 healthy subjects aged 17-50 years was recorded. Four different types of electrodes were used (JET contact lens, gold foil, DTL thread and c-glide carbon fiber electrodes) and the trough to peak amplitude response densities of the first order kernels (which approximated to the a and b wave of the full field electroretinogram) were compared. The JET contact lens electrode produced the highest amplitude response which was significantly different from the gold foil, DTL thread and the c-glide electrodes, but there was no significant difference between the gold foil and DTL or between DTL and the c-glide electrodes. In conclusion, contact lens electrode produced the highest response density followed by the gold foil and the DTL thread. There was no significant difference in amplitude response between the gold foil and DTL thread, therefore these two electrodes provide for viable alternatives for recording mfERG especially when there are concerns that contact lens electrode may be uncomfortable for recording periods that may take a long time.

Keywords: Carbon fiber electrode; DTL thread electrode; gold foil electrode; JET contact lens electrode; multifocal electroretinography; VERIS

ABSTRAK

Kajian ini bertujuan untuk membandingkan prestasi empat jenis elektrod dalam mengesan elektroretinogram multifokal (mfERG) dengan menggunakan sistem pengimejan visual gerak balas rangsang (VERIS). Multifokal ERG telah direkod daripada mata 30 orang subjek yang sihat dan berumur antara 17-50 tahun. Empat jenis elektrod berbeza telah digunakan (kanta sentuh JET, kerajang emas, bebenang DTL dan elektrod karbon fiber c-meluncur) dan kepadatan respons amplitud kernel urutan pertama (yang dianggarkan bersamaan gelombang a dan b elektroretinogram imbasan) dibandingkan. Elektrod kanta sentuh JET menghasilkan amplitud respons tertinggi yang berbeza secara signifikan berbanding dengan kerajang emas, bebenang DTL dan elektrod karbon fiber c-meluncur tetapi tidak ada perbezaan signifikan antara elektrod kerajang emas dan bebenang DTL atau antara bebenang DTL dan elektrod karbon fiber c-meluncur. Kesimpulannya, elektrod kanta sentuh menghasilkan respons yang tertinggi diikuti oleh kerajang emas dan bebenang DTL. Tiada perbezaan yang signifikan dalam amplitud antara kerajang emas dan benang DTL, maka kedua-dua elektrod ini boleh digunakan sebagai elektrod alternatif dalam pengrekodan mfERG terutama bagi mereka yang risau akan keselesaan elektrod kanta sentuh untuk pengrekodan yang mungkin mengambil masa yang lama.

Kata kunci: Elektrod bebenang DTL; elektrod JET kanta sentuh; elektrod karbon fiber; elektrod kerajang emas; elektroretinografi multifokal VERIS

REFERENCES

Arden, G.B., Carter, R.M., Hogg, C. & Margolis, S. 1979. A gold foil electrode : Extending the horizon for clinical measurement. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 18: 421-426.

Armington, J.C. 1974. The Electroretinogram. New York: Academic Press Inc. pp. 85-89.

Bearse Jr., M.A., Sutter, E.E., Smith, D.N. & Rose, S.J. 1995. Early detection of macular dysfunction in the topography of the electroretinogram. Vision Science and Its Application, Technical Digest Series Vol 1. Santa Fe, New Mexico OSA. pp. 318-321.

Beeler, P., Barthelmes, D., Sutter, F.K., Helbig, H. & Fleischhauer, J.C. 2007. Comparison of performance and patient satisfaction on two types of ERG electrodes. Klin. Monbl. Augenheilkd224(4): 265-268.

Bloom, B.H. & Sokol, S. 1977. A corneal electrode for pattern stimulus electroretinography. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 83: 272- 275.

Burian, H.M. & Allen, L.A. 1954. A speculum contact lens electrode for electroretinography. EEG Clin. Neurophysiol. 6: 509-511.

Celesia, G.G., Bodis-Wollner, I., Chatrian, G.E., Harding, G.F.A., Sokol, S. & Spekreijse, H. 1993. Recommended standards for electroretinograms and visual evoked potentials. Report of the IFCN committee. Electroencaph. and Clin. Neurophysiol. 87: 421-436.

Chase, W.W., Fradkin, N.E. & Tsuda, S. 1976. A new electrode for electroretinography. Am. J. Optom. & Physiol. Opt. 53: 668-671.

Dawson, W.W., Trick, G.L. & Litzkow, C.A. 1979. Improved electrode for elecroretinography. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 18(9): 988-991.

Esakowitz, L., Kriss, A. & Shawkat, F. 1993. A comparison of flash electroretinograms recorded from Burian-Allen, Jet, C-Glide, Gold foil, DTL and skin electrodes. Eye 7: 169-171.

Gjotterberg, M. 1986. Electrodes for retinograpahy. A comparison of four electrodes. Arch. Ophthalmol. 104: 569-570.

Hennessy, M.P. & Vaegan. 1995. Amplitude scaling relationships of Burian-Allen, gold foil and Dawson Trick and Litzkow electrodes. Doc. Ophthalmol. 89: 235-248.

Kondo, M., Miyake, Y., Horiguchi, M., Suzuku, S. & Tanikawa, A. 1995. Clinical evaluation of multifocal electroretinogram. Invest. Ophthal. Vis. Sci. 36: 2146-2150.

Kretscmann, U.H., Ruther, K.W. & Zrenner, E. 1995. Clinical assessement of macular function by ERG-topography. Invest. Ophthal. Vis. Sci. 36(4): 4248-4229.

La Chapelle, P., Benoit, J., Lithe, J.M. & La Chapelle, B. 1993. Recording the oscillatory potentials of the electroretinogram with the DTL electrodes. Doc. Ophthalmol. 83: 119-130.

Marmor, M.F., Hood, D.C., Keating, D., Kondo, M., Seelyer, M. & Miyake, Y. 2003. Guideline for basic multifocal electroretinography (mfERG). Doc. Ophthalmol. 106: 105- 115.

Marmor, M.F., Arden, G.B., Nilsson, S.E.G. & Zrenner, E. 1989. Standard for clinical electroretinography. Arch. Ophthalmol. 107: 816-819.

Mohidin, N., Yap, M.K.H. & Jacobs, R.J. 1996. The repeatability and variability of four different electrodes. Ophthal. Physiol. Opt. 17(6): 530-535.

Odom, J.V. 1991. Monitoring equipment and calibration. In Clinical and Practice on Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision, edited by Heckenlively, J.R. & Arden, G.B. Mosby Year Book, St Louis.

Prager, T.C., Saad, N., Scheitzer, F.C., Garcia, C.A. & Arden, G.B. 1992. Electrode comparison in pattern electroretinography. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 33: 390-394.

Riggs, L.A. 1941. Continuous and reproducible records of the electrical activity of the retina. Proc. Soc. Biol. Med. 48: 204-207.

Schoessler, J.P. & Jones, R. 1975. A new corneal electrode for electroretinography. Vision Res. 15: 299-301.

Sutter, E.E. & Tran, D. 1992. The field topography of ERG components in man_1. The photopic luminance response. Vision Res. 32: 433-446.

Sutter, E.E. & Bearse Jr, M.A. 1995. Extraction of a ganglion cell component from the corneal response. Vision Science & Its Applications. Technical Digest Series Vol I. Santa Fe, New Mexico OSA. pp. 310-313.

Thimonier, C., Daubas, P., Bourdon, L., Deral-Stephant, V., Menu, J.P., Vignal, R. & Roux, C. 2008. Multifocal ERG using ERG-Jet and gold foil electrodes in normal subjects: Comparison and reproducibility. J. Fr. Ophthalmol. 31(6): 585-590.

*Corresponding author; email: nmohidin@medic.ukm.edu.my