AIM: To understand how refractive errors, cataracts, and fixation errors affect multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) responses. METHODS: Monocular mfVEP responses were obtained using a pattern reversal dartboard display. For the control condition, visual acuity was corrected to > or =20/20 and foveal fixation was maintained. The right eye was tested under the following conditions: simulated refractive error, simulated cataract, steady eccentric fixation, and unsteady fixation. RESULTS: No subject demonstrated significant abnormalities under control conditions. For the simulated refractive error condition, significant centrally located abnormalities were seen for all subjects. For the simulated cataract condition, significant abnormalities were found for three subjects. The steady eccentric fixation condition yielded abnormalities in both eyes for all subjects while the unsteady fixation condition yielded significant central abnormalities in the tested eye. With eccentric and unsteady fixation conditions, all subjects had at least one sector with a waveform polarity reversal. CONCLUSIONS: While the mfVEP is a useful tool for identifying local optic nerve damage or ruling out non-organic aetiology of visual field defects, factors such as uncorrected refractive errors, cataract, eccentric fixation, and unsteady fixation can produce apparent field defects on the mfVEP. With care, these problems can be correctly identified.
AIM: To understand how refractive errors, cataracts, and fixation errors affect multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) responses. METHODS: Monocular mfVEP responses were obtained using a pattern reversal dartboard display. For the control condition, visual acuity was corrected to > or =20/20 and foveal fixation was maintained. The right eye was tested under the following conditions: simulated refractive error, simulated cataract, steady eccentric fixation, and unsteady fixation. RESULTS: No subject demonstrated significant abnormalities under control conditions. For the simulated refractive error condition, significant centrally located abnormalities were seen for all subjects. For the simulated cataract condition, significant abnormalities were found for three subjects. The steady eccentric fixation condition yielded abnormalities in both eyes for all subjects while the unsteady fixation condition yielded significant central abnormalities in the tested eye. With eccentric and unsteady fixation conditions, all subjects had at least one sector with a waveform polarity reversal. CONCLUSIONS: While the mfVEP is a useful tool for identifying local optic nerve damage or ruling out non-organic aetiology of visual field defects, factors such as uncorrected refractive errors, cataract, eccentric fixation, and unsteady fixation can produce apparent field defects on the mfVEP. With care, these problems can be correctly identified.