Literature DB >> 12804669

Rapid detection of threshold VEPs.

Alison M Mackay1, Michael S Bradnam, Ruth Hamilton.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a one-dimensional (1D) Laplacian analysis detects steady-state visual evoked potentials (ssVEPs) faster than the standard O(z)-F(z) montage and to establish the optimum position of Laplacian reference electrodes.
METHODS: Twenty-two normal adults were shown reversing checks ranging from 1.5' to 60'. Three electrode montages were investigated: O(z)-F(z), LO-F(z) and a 1D Laplacian analysis of 3 occipital electrodes (2O(z)-(RO+LO)). RO and LO were placed symmetrically and horizontally about O(z). Five different locations for RO and LO were investigated. Recordings were analysed in the frequency domain and the presence (and detection time, DT) or absence of a ssVEP defined statistically. Effects of individual, reference electrode site and check size on DT and phase differences between recording montages were investigated.
RESULTS: Laplacian analysis detected ssVEPs to small (3') checks faster than O(z)-F(z), by 12.3 and 4.1s on average with Laplacian reference electrodes at 15 and 20% of half-head circumference, respectively. The optimum position of reference electrodes was governed by the instantaneous spatial spread of the response and the noise coherence between midline and lateral electrodes.
CONCLUSIONS: A 1D Laplacian analysis can reduce the time to statistical detection of ssVEPs compared to the traditional O(z)-F(z) recording for stimuli near the normal acuity threshold of adults. This in turn could be used to minimise the length of a VEP acuity assessment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12804669     DOI: 10.1016/s1388-2457(03)00078-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol        ISSN: 1388-2457            Impact factor:   3.708


  5 in total

1.  [Early latency in pattern-reversal and flash mfVEP].

Authors:  J D Unterlauft; T Meigen
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 1.059

2.  A comparison of the performance of three visual evoked potential-based methods to estimate visual acuity.

Authors:  Anne Kurtenbach; Hana Langrová; Andre Messias; Eberhart Zrenner; Herbert Jägle
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-11-11       Impact factor: 2.379

3.  Visual evoked potential-based acuity assessment: overestimation in amblyopia.

Authors:  Yaroslava Wenner; Sven P Heinrich; Christina Beisse; Antje Fuchs; Michael Bach
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-03-13       Impact factor: 2.379

4.  Sensitivity and specificity of the step VEP in suspected functional visual acuity loss.

Authors:  Ruth Hamilton; Michael S Bradnam; Gordon N Dutton; Anna L Lai Chooi Yan; Tim E Lavy; I Livingstone; Alison M Mackay; Jane R Mackinnon
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-12-01       Impact factor: 2.379

Review 5.  VEP estimation of visual acuity: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ruth Hamilton; Michael Bach; Sven P Heinrich; Michael B Hoffmann; J Vernon Odom; Daphne L McCulloch; Dorothy A Thompson
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-06-02       Impact factor: 2.379

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.