Objective visual field determination in forensic ophthalmology with an optimized 4-channel multifocal VEP perimetry system: a case report of a patient with retinitis pigmentosa
- 149 Downloads
We present the case of a 59-year-old male patient with progressive vision impairment and consecutive visual field narrowing (“tunnel view”) for 7 years and a known retinitis pigmentosa for 5 years. The remaining Goldmann perimetric visual field at time reported was less than 5°. A request for blindness-related social benefits was rejected because an ophthalmologic expert assessment suggested malingering. This prompted us to assess an objective determination of the visual field using multifocal VEPs. Objective visual field recordings were performed with a four-channel multifocal VEP-perimeter using 58 stimulus fields (pattern reversal dartboard stimulus configuration). The correlated signal data were processed using an off-line method. At each field, the recording from the channel with the maximal signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was retained, thus resulting in an SNR optimized virtual recording. Analysis of VEP signals was performed for each single field and concentric rings and compared to an average response measured in five healthy subjects. Substantial VEP responses could be identified in three fields within the innermost ring (eccentricity, 1.7°) for both eyes, although SNR was generally low. More eccentric stimuli did not elicit reliable VEP responses. The mfVEP recording was correlated with perimetric visual field data. The current SNR optimization by using the channel with the largest SNR provides a good method to extract useful data from recordings and may be appropriate for the use in forensic ophthalmology.
KeywordsmfVEP Objective perimetry Retinitis pigmentosa Forensic ophthalmology
This study is financial supported by DFG SFB 539.
- 9.Hood DC, Holopigian K (2007) The use of multifocal electroretinograms and visual evoked potentials in diagnosing optic nerve disorders. In: Chan JW (ed) Optic nerve disorders, chapter 11. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar