The Value of VR-PVEP in Objective Evaluation of Monocular Refractive Visual Impairment.
10.12116/j.issn.1004-5619.2022.220610
- Author:
Hong-Xia HAO
1
;
Jie-Min CHEN
2
;
Rong-Rong WANG
3
;
Xiao-Ying YU
2
;
Meng WANG
2
;
Zhi-Lu ZHOU
2
;
Yan-Liang SHENG
1
;
Wen-Tao XIA
1
Author Information
1. Key Laboratory of Microecology-Immune Regulatory Network and Related Diseases, School of Basic Medicine, Jiamusi University, Jiamusi 154007, Heilongjiang Province, China.
2. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Forensic Medicine, Key Laboratory of Forensic Science, Ministry of Justice, Shanghai Forensic Service Platform, Academy of Forensic Science, Shanghai 200063, China.
3. Shanghai NCC Electronic Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200245, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
ametropia;
forensic medicine;
virtual reality-pattern visual evoked potential;
vision;
visual impairment;
wounds and injuries
- MeSH:
Humans;
Evoked Potentials, Visual;
Vision, Ocular;
Vision, Binocular/physiology*;
Vision Disorders/diagnosis*;
Virtual Reality
- From:
Journal of Forensic Medicine
2023;39(4):382-387
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES:To study the virtual reality-pattern visual evoked potential (VR-PVEP) P100 waveform characteristics of monocular visual impairment with different impaired degrees under simultaneous binocular perception and monocular stimulations.
METHODS:A total of 55 young volunteers with normal vision (using decimal recording method, far vision ≥0.8 and near vision ≥0.5) were selected to simulate three groups of monocular refractive visual impairment by interpolation method. The sum of near and far vision ≤0.2 was Group A, the severe visual impairment group; the sum of near and far vision <0.8 was Group B, the moderate visual impairment group; and the sum of near and far vision ≥0.8 was Group C, the mild visual impairment group. The volunteers' binocular normal visions were set as the control group. The VR-PVEP P100 peak times measured by simultaneous binocular perception and monocular stimulation were compared at four spatial frequencies 16×16, 24×24, 32×32 and 64×64.
RESULTS:In Group A, the differences between P100 peak times of simulant visual impairment eyes and simultaneous binocular perception at 24×24, 32×32 and 64×64 spatial frequencies were statistically significant (P<0.05); and the P100 peak time of normal vision eyes at 64×64 spatial frequency was significantly different from the simulant visual impairment eyes (P<0.05). In Group B, the differences between P100 peak times of simulant visual impairment eyes and simultaneous binocular perception at 16×16, 24×24 and 64×64 spatial frequencies were statistically significant (P<0.05); and the P100 peak time of normal vision eyes at 64×64 spatial frequency was significantly different from the simulant visual impairment eyes (P<0.05). In Group C, there was no significant difference between P100 peak times of simulant visual impairment eyes and simultaneous binocular perception at all spatial frequencies (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the P100 peak times measured at all spatial frequencies between simulant visual impairment eyes and simultaneous binocular perception in the control group (P>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS:VR-PVEP can be used for visual acuity evaluation of patients with severe and moderate monocular visual impairment, which can reflect the visual impairment degree caused by ametropia. VR-PVEP has application value in the objective evaluation of visual function and forensic clinical identification.
