# Impact of pulsed stimulation on objective and subjective visual acuity measurements in nystagmus

## TL;DR

This study found that pulsed stimulation does not explain why visual acuity estimates from VAVEP are higher in people with nystagmus.

## Contribution

The study clarifies that pulsed stimulation is not the cause of VAVEP overestimation in nystagmus.

## Key findings

- VAPsych_Pulsed and VAPsych_Stat did not differ significantly in participants with nystagmus.
- VAVEP estimates were significantly higher than both VAPsych_Pulsed and VAPsych_Stat.
- Fixation instability was not correlated with differences in psychophysical visual acuity measurements.

## Abstract

Quanz et al. (Sci Rep 14:16797, 2024) reported that participants with nystagmus had higher objective visual evoked potential visual acuity estimates (VAVEP) by 0.12 logMAR relative compared to standard psychophysical VA (VAPsych_Stat). The cause of this modest, but significant VAVEP overestimation remains unclear. Here we investigated its association with the pattern-pulse stimulation mode applied for steady state VEP recording for VAVEP estimation. Specifically, we tested whether psychophysical visual acuity to pulsed optotypes (VAPsych_Pulsed) also exceeds standard optotype VAPsych_Stat.

Twelve participants with nystagmus were included in this analysis. VAVEP was determined for pattern-pulse steady-state VEP stimulation (Quanz et al. in Sci Rep 14:16797, 2024) using EP2000, psychophysical VA was determined to stationary (VAPsych_Stat) and to pulsed (VAPsych_Pulsed) Landolt-C optotypes employing a modified version of the Freiburg Vision Test (FrACT). Pulsed stimulus timing was identical for VEP and VA (40 ms on and 93 ms off, i.e. at 7.5 Hz). In a separate measurement, fixation stability within the central 4° was determined using microperimetry (Nidek MP‐1), and the eye with the stronger fixation instability was selected for the analysis (12 eyes). LogMAR differences were assessed with a paired t-test and the correlation of fixation stability and VA differences (ΔVAPsych = VAPsych_Pulsed – VAPsych_Stat) was tested.

VAPsych_Stat (0.43 ± 0.06 logMAR) and VAPsych_Pulsed (0.45 ± 0.06 logMAR, P = 0.15) did not differ from each other, but from VAVEP (0.26 ± 0.08 logMAR, P = 0.02 and P = 0.01, respectively). There was no correlation of ΔVAPsych with fixation instability (r2 = 0.002, P = 0.89).

Pulsed stimulation appears not to be the reason for the VAVEP overestimation in nystagmus. Further research should address whether differences in the spatial stimulus properties might be of relevance, as VAPsych is tested with optotypes, VAVEP with extended patterns.