Literature DB >> 15881260

The effect of fixation instability on the multifocal VEP.

Michael Menz1, Erich Sutter, Momoyo Menz.   

Abstract

In multifocal visually evoked potentials (mfVEP), we find reversals in waveform near the horizontal meridian due to convolutions in the cortex. This renders the mfVEP very sensitive to small changes in gaze position. In this study we tested the effects of very small amounts of fixation instability on the mfVEP topography under controlled conditions using four normal subjects. In order to simulate unstable fixation, subjects were instructed to move their fixation point systematically in a clockwise direction between the endpoints of a fixation cross every few seconds (two degree diameter cross = one degree fixation error). Results were compared against a control condition with stable, central fixation. The effects of 0.5 degrees fixation error are small, but 1.0 degrees fixation error can produce a large decrease in root mean square signal amplitude (e.g., 60%) in the central foveal region (i.e., within 1.4 degrees eccentricity). The size of the effect drops off rapidly with eccentricity and varies greatly between areas within a subject, and between the four subjects. Beyond 3.0 degrees eccentricity the effects are minimal. Unstable fixation with relatively small fixation errors caused a dramatic decrease in mfVEP amplitude within three degrees of eccentricity, which can be misinterpreted as loss of macular function. Fixation monitoring is essential to obtain accurate results in the macular area when recording mfVEPs.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15881260     DOI: 10.1007/s10633-004-3790-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0012-4486            Impact factor:   2.379


  11 in total

1.  The stability of human eye orientation during visual fixation and imagined fixation in three dimensions.

Authors:  M Morisita; T Yagi
Journal:  Auris Nasus Larynx       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 1.863

2.  Effects of attention on pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials: foveal field stimulation versus peripheral field stimulation.

Authors:  M Hoshiyama; R Kakigi
Journal:  Brain Topogr       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 3.020

3.  Darkness beyond the light: attentional inhibition surrounding the classic spotlight.

Authors:  Scott D Slotnick; Joseph B Hopfinger; Stanley A Klein; Erich E Sutter
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2002-05-07       Impact factor: 1.837

Review 4.  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

5.  The spatial distribution of selective attention assessed using the multifocal visual evoked potential.

Authors:  William Seiple; Colleen Clemens; Vivienne C Greenstein; Karen Holopigian; Xian Zhang
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Objective VEP perimetry in glaucoma: asymmetry analysis to identify early deficits.

Authors:  S L Graham; A I Klistorner; J R Grigg; F A Billson
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 2.503

7.  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

8.  Multifocal topographic visual evoked potential: improving objective detection of local visual field defects.

Authors:  A I Klistorner; S L Graham; J R Grigg; F A Billson
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 4.799

9.  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

10.  Clinical application of the multifocal VEPs.

Authors:  Y Betsuin; Y Mashima; H Ohde; R Inoue; Y Oguchi
Journal:  Curr Eye Res       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 2.424

View more
  5 in total

1.  Effects of unsteady fixation on multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG).

Authors:  Patrick H W Chu; Henry H L Chan; Susan J Leat
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-03-21       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Fundus motion during mfERG testing.

Authors:  Jennyffer D Smith; Allison Jussel; Rachel Wang; Daniel R Coates; Wendy W Harrison
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-03-13       Impact factor: 2.379

3.  A frequency-tagging electrophysiological method to identify central and peripheral visual field deficits.

Authors:  Noémie Hébert-Lalonde; Lionel Carmant; Dima Safi; Marie-Sylvie Roy; Maryse Lassonde; Dave Saint-Amour
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-05-10       Impact factor: 2.379

Review 4.  The neural retina in retinopathy of prematurity.

Authors:  Ronald M Hansen; Anne Moskowitz; James D Akula; Anne B Fulton
Journal:  Prog Retin Eye Res       Date:  2016-09-23       Impact factor: 21.198

5.  Multifocal ERG responses in infants.

Authors:  Ronald M Hansen; Anne Moskowitz; Anne B Fulton
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2008-08-21       Impact factor: 4.799

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.