What monitor can replace the cathode-ray tube for visual stimulation to elicit multifocal electroretinograms?

Abstract

To compare a conventional cathode-ray tube (CRT) screen to organic light-emitting diode (OLED) and liquid crystal display (LCD) screens as visual stimulators to elicit multifocal electroretinograms (mfERGs), mfERGs were recorded from seven eyes of seven healthy volunteers (21 ± 2 years). The mfERGs elicited by a conventional CRT screen (S710, Compaq Computer Co.) were compared to those elicited by a studio-grade master OLED monitor (PVM-1741, Sony, Japan) and a conventional LCD (S1721, Flexscan, Eizo Nanao Corp., Japan). The luminance changes of each monitor were measured with a photodiode. CRT, OLED, and LCD screens with a frame frequency of 60 Hz were studied. A hexagonal stimulus array with 61 stimulus elements was created on each monitor. The serial white stimuli of the OLED screen at 60 Hz did not fuse, and that of the LCD screens fused. The amplitudes of P1 and P2 of the first-order kernels of the mfERGs were not significantly different from those elicited by the CRT and OLED screens, and the P1 amplitude of the first-order kernel elicited by the LCD stimuli was significantly smaller than that elicited by the CRT in all the groups of the averaged hexagonal elements. The implicit times were approximately 10 ms longer in almost all components elicited by the LCD screen compared to those elicited by the CRT screen. The mfERGs elicited by monitors other than the CRT should be carefully interpreted, especially those elicited by LCD screens. The OLED had good performance, and we conclude that it can replace the CRT as a stimulator for mfERGs; however, a collection of normative data is recommended.