The Value of VR-PVEP in Objective Evaluation of Monocular Refractive Visual Impairment

• Published in: Fa yi xue za zhi Vol. 39; no. 4; pp. 382 - 387
• Main Authors: Hao, Hong-Xia, Chen, Jie-Min, Wang, Rong-Rong, Yu, Xiao-Ying, Wang, Meng, Zhou, Zhi-Lu, Sheng, Yan-Liang, Xia, Wen-Tao
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: Chinese; English
• Published: Editorial Office of Journal of Forensic Medicine 25.08.2023
• Subjects: forensic medicine|wounds and injuries|vision|ametropia|visual impairment|virtual reality-pattern visual evoked potential
• ISSN: 1004-5619
• DOI: 10.12116/j.issn.1004-5619.2022.220610

OBJECTIVESTo 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. METHODSA 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. RESULTSIn 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). CONCLUSIONSVR-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.