HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Correspondence: Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Correspondence are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Husain, A. M. Articles by Shah, D. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Husain, A. M. Articles by Shah, D. Related Collections Diagnostic test assessment All clinical neurophysiology Evoked Potentials/Visual

Visual evoked potentials with CRT and LCD monitors

When newer is not better

From the Department of Medicine (Neurology) (A.M.H., D.S.), Duke University Medical Center; and Neurodiagnostic Center (A.M.H., S.H., M.Y., D.S.), Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Aatif M. Husain, 202 Bell Building, Box 3678, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710 Aatif.husain{at}duke.edu

Background: The stimulus for pattern reversal visual evoked potentials (PRVEP) has traditionally been delivered by a cathode ray tube (CRT) monitor. Liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors have become more affordable and are being used instead of CRT monitors for many applications. We tested the hypothesis that LCD monitors were equivalent to CRT monitors when used for PRVEP.

Methods: Monocular, full field PRVEP with a 32' check size were obtained in six normal subjects with a CRT monitor and LCD monitors having 2 msec, 8 msec, and 30 msec response times. The average P100 latency with the CRT screen was compared to the latencies with the LCD screens.

Results: The mean P100 latency of the CRT monitor was 107.7 (±6.6) ms, for the LCD 2 msec monitor was 115.7 (±6.9; p < 0.0001) ms, for the LCD 8 msec monitor was 118.5 (±6.5; p < 0.0001) ms, and the LCD 30 msec monitor was 156.8 (±6.8; p < 0.0001) ms.

Conclusions: Currently available liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors do not provide data comparable to cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors. LCD monitors cannot replace CRT monitors for pattern reversal visual evoked potentials unless new normative data are obtained.

Abbreviations: CRT = cathode ray tube; LCD = liquid crystal display; PRVEP = pattern reversal visual evoked potentials; VEP = visual evoked potentials.

Disclosure: The authors report no disclosures.

Received May 22, 2008. Accepted in final form October 1, 2008.