Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Improving the quality of electroretinogram recordings using active electrodes.

The aim of this study was to compare the quality of electroretinogram (ERG) recordings using a custom built active electrode with attached amplifier versus a standard (passive) ERG electrode. Scotopic and photopic ERG responses were recorded from five adult albino rabbits using a custom built active electrode on one eye and a passive electrode on the other. For the active electrode, the ERG-jet electrode (Universo S.A., La Chaux-De-Fonds, Switzerland) was used as the transducer with the cable cut short and soldered directly to the input of a customized amplifier. The passive electrode was a standard ERG jet electrode. The signal to noise ratio and reproducibility of ERGs were compared. The noise was significantly lower in the active electrode compared to the passive electrode (p = 0.009) resulting in signals being recorded at lower stimulation strengths with the active electrode. The scotopic a-wave was significantly larger in the active electrode at all supra-threshold stimulation intensities (p < 0.05) and the scotopic b-wave amplitudes were also higher in the active electrode at all supra-threshold stimulation intensities but was only statistically significant between -3.25 and -1 log cd.s.m-2 (p < 0.05). The photopic a- and b-wave amplitudes were also higher in the active electrode and statistically significant between -0.75 and 0.48 log cd.s.m-2 for the a-wave and -1.25 to -1 log cd.s.m-2 for the b-wave (p < 0.05). The intra-observer repeatability, inter-sessions reproducibility and reliability of the signals were better in the active electrode as evidenced by lower coefficient of variation (CV) and coefficient of repeatability (CR) with high intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of the a- and b-wave parameters of the active electrode. These findings suggest that the custom built active ERG electrode produces less noise than the passive electrode, allowing responses to be recorded at lower stimulation strengths. It produces greater signal amplitudes and improved reproducibility and is therefore a better device for investigating retinal function.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app