Literature DB >> 15842740

Effect of temporal sparseness and dichoptic presentation on multifocal visual evoked potentials.

Andrew C James1, Rasa Ruseckaite, Ted Maddess.   

Abstract

Multifocal VEP (mfVEP) responses were obtained from 13 normal human subjects for nine test conditions, covering three viewing conditions (dichoptic and left and right monocular), and three different temporal stimulation forms (rapid contrast reversal, rapid pattern pulse presentation, and slow pattern pulse presentation). The rapid contrast reversal stimulus had pseudorandomized reversals of checkerboards in each visual field region at a mean rate of 25 reversals/s, similar to most mfVEP studies to date. The rapid pattern pulse presentation had pseudorandomized presentations of a checkerboard for one frame, interspersed with uniform grey frames, with a mean rate of 25 presentations/s per region per eye. The slow pattern pulse stimulus had six presentations/s per region per eye. Recording time was 5.3 min/condition. For dichoptic presentation slow pattern pulse responses were 4.6 times larger in amplitude than the contrast reversal responses. Binocular suppression was greatest for the contrast reversal stimulus. Consideration of the signal-to-noise ratios indicated that to achieve a given level of reliability, slow pattern pulse stimuli would require half the recording time of contrast reversal stimuli for monocular viewing, and 0.4 times the recording time for dichoptically presented stimuli. About half the responses to the slow pattern pulse stimuli had peak value exceeding five times their estimated standard error. Responses were about 20% smaller in the upper visual field locations. Space-time decomposition showed that responses to slow pattern pulse were more consistent across visual field locations. We conclude that the pattern pulse stimuli, which we term temporally sparse, maintain the visual system in a high contrast gain state. This more than compensates for the smaller number of presentations in the run, and provides signal-to-noise advantages that may be valuable in clinical application.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15842740     DOI: 10.1017/S0952523805221053

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vis Neurosci        ISSN: 0952-5238            Impact factor:   3.241


  18 in total

1.  From evoked potentials to cortical currents: Resolving V1 and V2 components using retinotopy constrained source estimation without fMRI.

Authors:  Samuel A Inverso; Xin-Lin Goh; Linda Henriksson; Simo Vanni; Andrew C James
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2016-02-12       Impact factor: 5.038

2.  The mapping of visual space by identified large second-order neurons in the dragonfly median ocellus.

Authors:  Richard Berry; Gert Stange; Robert Olberg; Joshua van Kleef
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2006-06-08       Impact factor: 1.836

3.  Multifocal visual evoked responses to dichoptic stimulation using virtual reality goggles: Multifocal VER to dichoptic stimulation.

Authors:  Hemamalini Arvind; Alexander Klistorner; Stuart L Graham; John R Grigg
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-06-22       Impact factor: 2.379

4.  Multifocal pupillography identifies retinal dysfunction in early age-related macular degeneration.

Authors:  Faran Sabeti; Andrew C James; Rohan W Essex; Ted Maddess
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-02-08       Impact factor: 3.117

5.  Comparison of cathode ray tube and liquid crystal display stimulators for use in multifocal VEP.

Authors:  Marÿke Fox; Colin Barber; David Keating; Alan Perkins
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-07-02       Impact factor: 2.379

6.  Assessing visual pathway function in multiple sclerosis patients with multifocal visual evoked potentials.

Authors:  Michal Laron; Han Cheng; Bin Zhang; Jade S Schiffman; Rosa A Tang; Laura J Frishman
Journal:  Mult Scler       Date:  2009-12-07       Impact factor: 6.312

7.  Dichoptic multifocal visual evoked potentials identify local retinal dysfunction in age-related macular degeneration.

Authors:  Faran Sabeti; Andrew C James; Rohan W Essex; Ted Maddess
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-12-13       Impact factor: 2.379

8.  Recovery dynamics of multifocal pupillographic objective perimetry from tropicamide dilation.

Authors:  Bhim Bahadur Rai; Faran Sabeti; Corinne F Carle; Emilie M F Rohan; Özge Saraç; Joshua van Kleef; Ted Maddess
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-11-13       Impact factor: 3.117

9.  Frequency doubling illusion VEPs and automated perimetry in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Rasa Ruseckaite; Teddy Maddess; Gytis Danta; Andrew Charles James
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-08-12       Impact factor: 2.379

10.  A comparison of multifocal and conventional visual evoked potential techniques in patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Larissa K Grover; Donald C Hood; Quraish Ghadiali; Tomas M Grippo; Adam S Wenick; Vivienne C Greenstein; Myles M Behrens; Jeffrey G Odel
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-01-18       Impact factor: 2.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.