Literature DB >> 10947003

Multifocal pattern VEP perimetry: analysis of sectoral waveforms.

A I Klistorner1, S L Graham.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The objective detection of local visual field defects using multi-focal pattern visual evoked potentials (VEP) has recently been described. The individual waveforms show variable polarity in different parts of the visual field due to underlying cortical convolutions. Normal trace arrays were examined to determine if certain areas of similar waveform could be grouped for analysis, while minimising cancellation of data.
METHOD: The VEP was assessed using multi-focal pseudo-randomly alternated pattern stimuli which were cortically scaled in size. Bipolar occipital electrodes were used for recording. Waveforms were compared for different locations within the field up to 25 degrees of eccentricity. Analysis of sectors showing similarly shaped waveforms was performed. Twelve normal subjects were studied. RESULT: Grouping waveforms by sectors of similar waveform increased the total calculated upper hemifield amplitude by 60%, compared with simple summations of responses for the whole hemifield. The inferior hemifield showed more consistent waveforms throughout, with the amplitude only increasing by 11% with sectoral summation. Intra-subject variability (10.6%) is less for sectors than for individual points (17.3%). Inter-subject amplitude differences are high, calculated at 56% for individual points and 45% for sectors.
CONCLUSIONS: Due to differences in waveform as a result of underlying cortical anatomy, individual VEP responses from multifocal recordings should be grouped as sectors along the vertical meridian and above and below the horizontal, rather than by hemifields or quadrants. This finding is significant if one is considering within-field grouping strategies similar to the glaucoma hemifield test used in conventional perimetry, or reporting derived overall VEP amplitudes and latencies from a multifocal recording. Large amplitude variations between individuals and small signals from horizontal and upper field seen in single channel recording, still limit the application of this technique as a form of objective perimetry.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10947003     DOI: 10.1023/a:1002449304052

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0012-4486            Impact factor:   1.854


  20 in total

1.  Electrode position and the multi-focal visual-evoked potential: role in objective visual field assessment.

Authors:  A I Klistorner; S L Graham; J R Grigg; F A Billson
Journal:  Aust N Z J Ophthalmol       Date:  1998-05

2.  M and P components of the VEP and their visual field distribution.

Authors:  H A Baseler; E E Sutter
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  The asymmetrical visual evoked potential to pattern reversal in one half field and its significance for the analysis of visual field defects.

Authors:  L D Blumhardt; G Barrett; A M Halliday
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1977-07       Impact factor: 4.638

4.  [Quadrant pattern visual evoked potential in normal eyes].

Authors:  C Lan; G Song; L Zeng
Journal:  Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi       Date:  1996-05

5.  Human cortical magnification factor and its relation to visual acuity.

Authors:  A Cowey; E T Rolls
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1974       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Source locations of pattern-specific components of human visual evoked potentials. II. Component of extrastriate cortical origin.

Authors:  D A Jeffreys; J G Axford
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1972       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Clinical evaluation of VEPs to interleaved checkerboard reversal stimulation of central, hemi- and peripheral fields.

Authors:  A Brusa; C Mortimer; S J Jones
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1995-11

8.  Visual evoked responses and retinal eccentricity.

Authors:  G G Celesia; J T Meredith
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  1982       Impact factor: 5.691

9.  The representation of the visual field in human striate cortex. A revision of the classic Holmes map.

Authors:  J C Horton; W F Hoyt
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1991-06

10.  Visual evoked cortical potential to paracentral retinal stimulation in chronic glaucoma, ocular hypertension, and an age-matched group of normals.

Authors:  J W Howe; K W Mitchell
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1986-06-16       Impact factor: 2.379

View more
  7 in total

1.  Quantifying the benefits of additional channels of multifocal VEP recording.

Authors:  Donald C Hood; Xian Zhang; Jenny E Hong; Candice S Chen
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 2.379

2.  A signal-to-noise analysis of multifocal VEP responses: an objective definition for poor records.

Authors:  Xian Zhang; Donald C Hood; Candice S Chen; Jenny E Hong
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 2.379

3.  Steady-state multifocal visual evoked potential (ssmfVEP) using dartboard stimulation as a possible tool for objective visual field assessment.

Authors:  Folkert K Horn; Franziska Selle; Bettina Hohberger; Jan Kremers
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-11-09       Impact factor: 3.117

4.  Determining abnormal interocular latencies of multifocal visual evoked potentials.

Authors:  Donald C Hood; Xian Zhang; Christopher Rodarte; E Bo Yang; Nitin Ohri; Brad Fortune; Chris A Johnson
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.379

5.  Effect of eccentricity on pattern-pulse multifocal VEP.

Authors:  Alexander I Klistorner; Stuart L Graham
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2005 Mar-May       Impact factor: 2.379

6.  Multifocal pattern electroretinogram does not demonstrate localised field defects in glaucoma.

Authors:  A I Klistorner; S L Graham; A Martins
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 2.379

7.  PRBS-determined temporal frequency characteristics of VEP in glaucoma.

Authors:  Keiko Momose; Motohiro Kiyosawa; Nobuyuki Nemoto; Hiroshi Mori; Manabu Mochizuki; Joseph Jy-Haw Yu
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 2.379

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.