Documenta Ophthalmologica

, Volume 138, Issue 1, pp 21–33 | Cite as

Comparison between broadband and monochromatic photopic negative response in full-field electroretinogram in controls and subjects with primary open-angle glaucoma

  • Aniruddha Banerjee
  • Mona Khurana
  • Ramya Sachidanandam
  • Parveen SenEmail author
Original Research Article



A prospective, cross-sectional, case–control study was conducted to investigate the role of broadband and monochromatic photopic negative response (PhNR) of the full-field flash electroretinogram (ERG) in the evaluation of ganglion cell damage in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) subjects.


Subjects with POAG and age-matched normal subjects were recruited from the outpatient department of a tertiary eye care center in South India. A total of 25 patients with POAG and 50 age-matched normal subjects were recruited. ERG was recorded using broadband (3.5 cd.s/m2 white stimulus on 10 cd/m2 white background) and monochromatic (3.5 cd.s/m2 red stimulus on 10 cd/m2 blue background and 1 cd.s/m2 blue stimulus on 10 cd/m2 yellow background) stimuli.


The reduction in PhNR amplitude in POAG compared to normal individuals was higher in red-on-blue PhNR [26.37 µV; p < 0.001, confidence interval (CI) 19.34 to 33.4] as compared to broadband stimuli (16.41 µV; p < 0.001, CI 8.68 to 24.13), and blue on yellow (21.96 µV; p < 0.001, CI 10.12 to 33.8). Red-on-blue PhNR amplitudes correlated better with mean deviation (MD; r = − 0.66, p < 0.05), pattern standard deviation (PSD; r = − 0.4, p = 0.04), visual field index (VFI; r = − 0.58, p < 0.05), and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness (r = − 0.67, p < 0.05) in comparison with broadband and monochromatic blue-on-yellow PhNR. Receiver operating characteristic curve revealed largest area under the curve (0.89) in red-on-blue PhNR compared to broadband (0.76) and blue on yellow (0.74). The sensitivity and specificity was also higher in red-on-blue PhNR (72% and 80%, respectively) as compared to the other stimuli (sensitivity and specificity of broadband 0.68 and 0.7, blue on yellow 0.64 and 0.7, respectively).


Correlation of PhNR with Humphrey visual field parameters and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness showed that red-on-blue PhNR can be a useful additional tool for clinical assessment of retinal ganglion cell dysfunction in glaucoma patients. Red-on-blue PhNR was more sensitive as compared to white-on-white and blue-on-yellow PhNR in identifying ganglion cell dysfunction and correlates well with other structural and functional tests for glaucoma such as MD, PSD, VFI, and RNFL thickness.


Full-field electroretinogram Photopic negative response Broadband ERG Monochromatic ERG Primary open-angle glaucoma 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Statement of human rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Statement on the welfare of animals

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Foster PJ, Buhrmann R, Quigley HA, Johnson GJ (2002) The definition and classification of glaucoma in prevalence surveys. Br J Ophthalmol 86(2):238–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gardiner SK, Swanson WH, Goren D, Mansberger SL, Demirel S (2014) Assessment of the reliability of standard automated perimetry in regions of glaucomatous damage. Ophthalmology 121(7):1359–1369. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blumenthal EZ, Sample PA, Berry CC, Lee AC, Girkin CA, Zangwill L, Caprioli J, Weinreb RN (2003) Evaluating several sources of variability for standard and SWAP visual fields in glaucoma patients, suspects, and normals. Ophthalmology 110(10):1895–1902. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    JunoyMontolio FG, Wesselink C, Gordijn M, Jansonius NM (2012) Factors that influence standard automated perimetry test results in glaucoma: test reliability, technician experience, time of day, and season. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53(11):7010–7017. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kutzko KE, Brito CF, Wall M (2000) Effect of instructions on conventional automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41(7):2006–2013Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Viswanathan S, Frishman LJ, Robson JG, Harwerth RS, Smith EL (1999) The photopic negative response of the macaque electroretinogram: reduction by experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 40(6):1124–1136. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Viswanathan S, Frishman LJ, Robson JG, Walters JW (2001) The photopic negative response of the flash electroretinogram in primary open angle glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42(2):514–522. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    North RV, Jones AL, Drasdo N, Wild JM, Morgan JE (2010) Electrophysiological evidence of early functional damage in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 51(2):1216–1222. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Machida S, Tamada K, Oikawa T, Gotoh Y, Nishimura T, Kaneko M, Kurosaka D (2011) Comparison of photopic negative response of full-field and focal electroretinograms in detecting glaucomatous eyes. J Ophthalmol. Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shen X, Huang L, Fan N, He J (2013) Relationship among photopic negative response, retinal nerve fiber layer thickness, and visual field between normal and POAG eyes. ISRN Ophthalmol 2013:182021. Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rangaswamy NV, Frishman LJ, Dorotheo EU, Schiffman JS, Bahrani HM, Tang RA (2004) Photopic ERGs in patients with optic neuropathies: comparison with primate ERGs after pharmacologic blockade of inner retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45(10):3827–3837. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gotoh Y, Machida S, Tazawa Y (2004) Selective loss of the photopic negative response in patients with optic nerve atrophy. Arch Ophthalmol 122(3):341–346. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim HD, Park JY, Ohn YH (2010) Clinical applications of photopic negative response (PhNR) for the treatment of glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy. Korean J Ophthalmol 24(2):89–95. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sustar M, Cvenkel B, Brecelj J (2009) The effect of broadband and monochromatic stimuli on the photopic negative response of the electroretinogram in normal subjects and in open-angle glaucoma patients. Doc Ophthalmol 118(3):167–177. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rangaswamy NV, Shirato S, Kaneko M, Digby BI, Robson JG, Frishman LJ (2007) Effects of spectral characteristics of ganzfeld stimuli on the photopic negative response (PhNR) of the ERG. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48(10):4818–4828. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kremers J, Jertila M, Link B, Pangeni G, Horn FK (2012) Spectral characteristics of the PhNR in the full-field flash electroretinogram of normals and glaucoma patients. Doc Ophthalmol 124(2):79–90. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Drasdo N, Aldebasi YH, Chiti Z, Mortlock KE, Morgan JE, North RV (2001) The s-cone PHNR and pattern ERG in primary open angle glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42(6):1266–1272Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Foster PJ, Buhrmann R, Quigley HA, Johnson GJ (2002) The definition and classification of glaucoma in prevalence surveys. Br J Ophthalmol 86(2):238–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Colotto A, Falsini B, Salgarello T, Iarossi G, Galan ME, Scullica L (2000) Photopic negative response of the human ERG: losses associated with glaucomatous damage. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41(8):2205–2211Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McCulloch DL, Marmor MF, Brigell MG et al (2015) ISCEV standard for full-field clinical electroretinography (2015 update). Doc Ophthalmol 130(1):1–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Machida S, Gotoh Y, Kaneko M, Toba Y, Ohtaki A, Kurosaka D (2007) Comparison of the photopic negative response obtained under different recording conditions in glaucomatous eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48(13):215–221Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Elite School of Optometry, Unit of Medical Research FoundationChennaiIndia
  2. 2.Srimathi Sundari Subramanian Department of Visual PsychophysicsSankara NethralayaChennaiIndia
  3. 3.Department of Retina, Shri Bhagwan Mahavir Vitreoretinal ServicesSankara Nethralaya, Medical Research FoundationChennaiIndia
  4. 4.Smt. Jadhavbai Nathamal Singhvee Glaucoma ServicesSankara NethralayaChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations