Literature DB >> 15660277

The influence of defocus on multifocal visual evoked potentials.

Christina Pieh1, Michael B Hoffmann, Michael Bach.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In order to assess the influence of optical factors on the multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP), we obtained mfVEPs with optimal refraction and compared them to recordings with various degrees of dioptrical defocus.
METHODS: Monocular mfVEPs were recorded from the right eye in eight normal subjects. Dartboard stimuli with 60 sectors arranged in six concentric annuli spanning 60 degrees were generated with a VERIS system and presented on a computer monitor. Two pairs of electrodes were placed 3 cm above and below and 3 cm to the right and left of the inion. Two sets of mfVEP records per subject were obtained, one with best-corrected visual acuity and another when the stimulus was defocused by +1.0, +2.0 or +3.0 D. A signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measure was calculated for every response from the two channels.
RESULTS: The effect of defocus depended on eccentricity: when defocus was at +2.0 D and higher, reducing visual acuity to <0.3, the central mfVEP responses were reduced to approximately 60%, while defocus had no marked effect at eccentricities >7 degrees.
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that, in contrast to the mfERG, the mfVEP requires optimal refraction to correctly assess the cortical responses.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15660277     DOI: 10.1007/s00417-004-0969-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0721-832X            Impact factor:   3.117


  18 in total

1.  Effects of stimulus blocking, light scattering, and distortion on multifocal electroretinogram.

Authors:  M Arai; J M Lopes de Faria; T Hirose
Journal:  Jpn J Ophthalmol       Date:  1999 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.447

2.  Multifocal ERG and VEP responses and visual fields: comparing disease-related changes.

Authors:  D C Hood; X Zhang
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 2.379

Review 3.  Multifocal VEP and ganglion cell damage: applications and limitations for the study of glaucoma.

Authors:  Donald C Hood; Vivienne C Greenstein
Journal:  Prog Retin Eye Res       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 21.198

4.  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

5.  The effect of defocus on the contrast and phase of the retinal image of a sinusoidal grating.

Authors:  G Walsh; W N Charman
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  1989-10       Impact factor: 3.117

6.  The topography of visual evoked response properties across the visual field.

Authors:  H A Baseler; E E Sutter; S A Klein; T Carney
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1994-01

7.  The topography and variability of the primary visual cortex in man.

Authors:  S S Stensaas; D K Eddington; W H Dobelle
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1974-06       Impact factor: 5.115

8.  The variability of the human striate cortex.

Authors:  G S Brindley
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1972-09       Impact factor: 5.182

9.  Blur-induced changes in the visual evoked potential.

Authors:  M S Berman; S Seki
Journal:  Am J Optom Physiol Opt       Date:  1982-07

10.  Electroencephalogram-based scaling of multifocal visual evoked potentials: effect on intersubject amplitude variability.

Authors:  A I Klistorner; S L Graham
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 4.799

View more
  7 in total

1.  Role of latency jittering correction in motion-onset VEP amplitude decay during prolonged visual stimulation.

Authors:  J Kremláček; M Hulan; M Kuba; Z Kubová; J Langrová; F Vít; J Szanyi
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-03-20       Impact factor: 2.379

2.  Accommodation limits induced optical defocus in defocus experiments.

Authors:  Herbert Jägle; Ditta Zobor; Thomas Brauns
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-06-11       Impact factor: 2.379

3.  Effect of refractive errors on multifocal VEP responses and standard automated perimetry tests in a single population.

Authors:  Makoto Nakamura; Kei Kato; Seiko Kamata; Kumiko Ishikawa; Takayuki Nagai
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 2.379

4.  Immediate cortical adaptation in visual and non-visual areas functions induced by monovision.

Authors:  Fabrizio Zeri; Marika Berchicci; Shehzad A Naroo; Sabrina Pitzalis; Francesco Di Russo
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2017-11-15       Impact factor: 5.182

5.  Short-term delay in neural response with multifocal contact lens might start at the retinal level.

Authors:  Paulo Fernandes; Cesarina Ferreira; Joana Domingues; Ana Amorim-de-Sousa; Miguel Faria-Ribeiro; António Queirós; José M González-Meijome
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-04-02       Impact factor: 1.854

6.  Reproducibility of the mfERG between instruments.

Authors:  Wendy W Harrison; Marcus A Bearse; Jason S Ng; Shirin Barez; Marilyn E Schneck; Anthony J Adams
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2009-03-26       Impact factor: 2.379

7.  Heterogeneity of stimulus-specific response modification-an fMRI study on neuroplasticity.

Authors:  Jacob Lahr; Jessica Peter; Michael Bach; Irina Mader; Christoph Nissen; Claus Normann; Christoph P Kaller; Stefan Klöppel
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2014-09-08       Impact factor: 3.169

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.