Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2025
Comparison of ERG signal-to-noise ratios in simultaneous recordings with skin electrodes and contact lens electrodes.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Brodie Scott E, Faruque Promie, Pincay Jorge, Sylla Mohamed, Cui Xuan, Choi Stephanie, Holopigian Karen, Greenstein Vivienne
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare signal-to-noise levels in ERG recordings obtained with contact lens electrodes and adhesive skin electrodes.
METHODS: 23 subjects were studied. Full-field ERGs were recorded according to ISCEV standards simultaneously with ERG-jet corneal contact lens electrodes and LKC Technologies Sensor Strip adhesive skin electrodes. B-wave amplitude or peak-to-peak amplitude was used as a measure of signal strength. Noise was estimated using the " ± averaging method." Comparisons between signal strength, absolute noise levels, and signal-to-noise ratios between contact lens and skin electrodes were performed by linear regression.
RESULTS: Comparisons of signal strength for LA 3, 30-Hz, DA 0.01, and DA 3 responses, yielded regression coefficient ß values of 0.37, 0.39, 0.39, and 0.35, respectively. For the entire data set, the regression coefficient ß value was 0.36 (95% confidence limits 0.34 - 0.38). The grand average ERG noise for all ERG stimuli was 13.8 µV for contact lens electrodes and 13.0 µV for skin electrodes (not significant: p = 0.66 for paired t-test). For signal-to-noise ratios, regression ß coefficients for contact lens and adhesive skin electrodes for LA 3, 30-Hz, DA 0.01, and DA 3 stimuli were 0.25, 0.39, 0.50, and 0.36 respectively. The ß coefficient for the amalgamated data set was 0.33 (95% confidence limits 0.30- 0.36).
CONCLUSIONS: Overall ERG amplitudes obtained with skin electrodes were 1/3 those obtained with contact lens electrodes. Absolute noise levels were similar. Signal-to-noise levels with skin electrodes were 1/3 those seen with contact lens electrodes. Implications for signal-averaging in clinical applications are discussed.
METHODS: 23 subjects were studied. Full-field ERGs were recorded according to ISCEV standards simultaneously with ERG-jet corneal contact lens electrodes and LKC Technologies Sensor Strip adhesive skin electrodes. B-wave amplitude or peak-to-peak amplitude was used as a measure of signal strength. Noise was estimated using the " ± averaging method." Comparisons between signal strength, absolute noise levels, and signal-to-noise ratios between contact lens and skin electrodes were performed by linear regression.
RESULTS: Comparisons of signal strength for LA 3, 30-Hz, DA 0.01, and DA 3 responses, yielded regression coefficient ß values of 0.37, 0.39, 0.39, and 0.35, respectively. For the entire data set, the regression coefficient ß value was 0.36 (95% confidence limits 0.34 - 0.38). The grand average ERG noise for all ERG stimuli was 13.8 µV for contact lens electrodes and 13.0 µV for skin electrodes (not significant: p = 0.66 for paired t-test). For signal-to-noise ratios, regression ß coefficients for contact lens and adhesive skin electrodes for LA 3, 30-Hz, DA 0.01, and DA 3 stimuli were 0.25, 0.39, 0.50, and 0.36 respectively. The ß coefficient for the amalgamated data set was 0.33 (95% confidence limits 0.30- 0.36).
CONCLUSIONS: Overall ERG amplitudes obtained with skin electrodes were 1/3 those obtained with contact lens electrodes. Absolute noise levels were similar. Signal-to-noise levels with skin electrodes were 1/3 those seen with contact lens electrodes. Implications for signal-averaging in clinical applications are discussed.