|
KMID : 0860920170190020067
|
|
Journal of the Korean Association EMG-Electrodiagnostic Medicine
2017 Volume.19 No. 2 p.67 ~ p.70
|
|
|
Difference of Visual Evoked Potential Study with Different Types of Monitors
|
|
Kim Sang-Hun
Suh Bum-Chun
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
Objective: We wanted to test that LCD monitor can be used for pattern reversal VEPs with short response time instead of standard CRT monitor.
Method: In 8 normal subjects with 16 eyes, VEPs were done with CRT and response time 1 ms LCD, 5 ms LCD monitors. Latencies of P100 waves and amplitudes of N75-P100 were compared for 3 different monitor groups.
Results: Mean latencies of P100 waves were 111.8 ± 6.0 ms for CRT group, 115.8 ± 5.9 ms for 1 ms LCD group and 118.5 ± 6.2 ms for 5 ms LCD group and there was significant difference between latencies of CRT and 5 ms groups (p < 0.01, post-hoc analysis). Furthermore, latency difference value from CRT group minus LCD group on each subject also showed significant difference between CRT-1 ms LCD and CRT-5 ms LCD (p < 0.01). Mean amplitudes of N75-P100 didn’t show difference between 3 monitor groups.
Conclusion: Latency of P100 wave with LCD monitor with 5 ms response time is longer than that with CRT monitor and LCD monitor with 1 ms response time also showed tendency of delay. These results suggest that the ready-made reference value should not be applied to the reference range with LCD monitor even though short response time.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
visual evoked potential, cathode ray tube display, liquid crystal
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
 
|