Purpose

This study evaluated a new light-emitting diode (LED-S) photic stimulator and compared skin electroretinogram (ERG) responses obtained to those evoked by the Grass Instrument stimulator (GP-S).

Methods

Two sub-studies were combined to evaluate the difference in responses resulting from the LED-S and GP-S stimuli. The first was a photometry study that matched the LED-S stimuli to the GP-S. In the second study, electroretinograms (ERGs) were recorded under scotopic and photopic conditions using stimuli each stimulator. The stimuli were matched photometrically to measurements obtained from the photometer located 30 cm in front of the stimulators. In addition, the ERG responses were recorded from the LED stimulator when photometrically matched to the GP-S blue stimulus presented through a ganzfeld. The amplitudes and time peaks of the resulting ERG a- and b-waves were then measured and compared using paired T-tests.

Results

Study 1: The LED-S was matched to the GP-S at various intensity settings measured 30 cm away from the stimulator. Measurement through a ganzfeld full-field stimulator (GFFS) demonstrated that the GP-S had a significant hot spot centrally.

Study 2: Photometrically matched ERGs evoked by both stimulators while employing the direct head-on measurements demonstrated multiple similarities. Similarities included component morphology, amplitude and implicit time across the two stimulators, excluding the rod-driven stimulus (GP-S setting employing a blue filter). Differences between the rod-driven ERGs evoked by the GP-S and LED-S while employing head-on photometric measurements were due to the significant difference in intensities between the two stimulators. The GP-S and LED-S evoked similar rod-driven ERG responses when they were matched using the GFFS photometrically matched intensities protocol.

Conclusion

A hand-held stimulator is essential when recording ERG’s in the practice of paediatric visual electrophysiology. The LED-S can match the GP-S stimulus intensities, making it a potential replacement for the GP-S. In addition, the LED-S has uniform intensity across the surface of the device compared to the GP-S, is silent for standard stimuli and can generate prolonged duration stimuli for the recording of on–off ERGs.

中文翻译：

---

用于儿童视网膜电图记录的 Grass 闪光灯和新型 LED 光刺激器的比较。

目的

本研究评估了一种新的发光二极管 (LED-S) 光刺激器，并将获得的皮肤视网膜电图 (ERG) 反应与草仪器刺激器 (GP-S) 诱发的反应进行了比较。

方法

结合两个子研究来评估 LED-S 和 GP-S 刺激引起的反应差异。第一个是将 LED-S 刺激与 GP-S 相匹配的光度测量研究。在第二项研究中，视网膜电图 (ERG) 在暗视和明视条件下使用每个刺激器的刺激进行记录。刺激在光度计上与从位于刺激器前面 30 厘米处的光度计获得的测量值相匹配。此外，当与通过甘茨菲尔德呈现的 GP-S 蓝色刺激进行光度匹配时，从 LED 刺激器记录 ERG 响应。然后测量所得 ERG a 波和 b 波的振幅和时间峰值，并使用配对T检验进行比较。

结果

研究 1：在距刺激器 30 厘米处测量的各种强度设置下，LED-S 与 GP-S 相匹配。通过 Ganzfeld 全场刺激器 (GFFS) 进行的测量表明 GP-S 在中央有一个显着的热点。

研究 2：在采用直接正面测量时，由两个刺激器诱发的光度匹配 ERG 显示出多种相似性。相似之处包括两个刺激器的成分形态、振幅和隐含时间，不包括杆驱动刺激（GP-S 设置采用蓝色过滤器）。在采用正面光度测量时由 GP-S 和 LED-S 引起的杆驱动 ERG 之间的差异是由于两种刺激器之间的强度存在显着差异。当使用 GFFS 光度匹配强度协议匹配时，GP-S 和 LED-S 引起了类似的杆驱动 ERG 响应。

结论

在儿科视觉电生理实践中记录 ERG 时，手持刺激器是必不可少的。LED-S 可以匹配 GP-S 的刺激强度，使其成为 GP-S 的潜在替代品。此外，与 GP-S 相比，LED-S 在整个设备表面具有均匀的强度，对于标准刺激是静音的，并且可以产生持续时间更长的刺激以记录开关 ERG。