PURPOSE: To describe methods for measuring interocular latency differences of multifocal visual evoked potentials (mfVEP) and for determining regions with abnormal interocular latencies in patients. METHODS: The mfVEPs from 100 individuals with normal visual fields and normal fundus examinations were analyzed. Individuals ranged in age from 21.6 to 92.4 years. The stimulus was a 60 sector, pattern-reversing dartboard display. Each sector had 16 checks, 8 white (200 cd/m2) and 8 black (< 1 cd/m2). Interocular latency was measured as the temporal shift producing the best cross-correlation value between the corresponding responses of each eye. The 'corrected interocular latency' was defined as the difference between this shift and the mean interocular latency (shift) for a particular sector and recording channel. RESULTS: The variability of the corrected interocular latency decreased as the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the mfVEP responses increased. For example, the 95% confidence intervals decreased from over 16 ms to under 4 ms as SNR increased. Grouping and summing the responses also lead to an increase in SNR and a decrease in the confidence interval. The results of various cluster criteria were also derived. A cluster criterion (e.g. two or more contiguous points within a hemisphere exceeding a given confidence interval), can serve to increase the specificity for detection of eyes or individuals with abnormal interocular latencies. For example, while 21% of the eyes had 3 or more points exceeding the 5% confidence interval, only 1.8% of the eyes had a cluster of 3 or more of these points. Finally, interocular latency was only weakly correlated with age (r = 0.26). CONCLUSION: In testing for abnormalities in interocular latencies, the confidence interval should be based upon the SNR of the response. Grouping and summing responses to increase SNR or employing a cluster test may also prove useful.
PURPOSE: To describe methods for measuring interocular latency differences of multifocal visual evoked potentials (mfVEP) and for determining regions with abnormal interocular latencies in patients. METHODS: The mfVEPs from 100 individuals with normal visual fields and normal fundus examinations were analyzed. Individuals ranged in age from 21.6 to 92.4 years. The stimulus was a 60 sector, pattern-reversing dartboard display. Each sector had 16 checks, 8 white (200 cd/m2) and 8 black (< 1 cd/m2). Interocular latency was measured as the temporal shift producing the best cross-correlation value between the corresponding responses of each eye. The 'corrected interocular latency' was defined as the difference between this shift and the mean interocular latency (shift) for a particular sector and recording channel. RESULTS: The variability of the corrected interocular latency decreased as the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the mfVEP responses increased. For example, the 95% confidence intervals decreased from over 16 ms to under 4 ms as SNR increased. Grouping and summing the responses also lead to an increase in SNR and a decrease in the confidence interval. The results of various cluster criteria were also derived. A cluster criterion (e.g. two or more contiguous points within a hemisphere exceeding a given confidence interval), can serve to increase the specificity for detection of eyes or individuals with abnormal interocular latencies. For example, while 21% of the eyes had 3 or more points exceeding the 5% confidence interval, only 1.8% of the eyes had a cluster of 3 or more of these points. Finally, interocular latency was only weakly correlated with age (r = 0.26). CONCLUSION: In testing for abnormalities in interocular latencies, the confidence interval should be based upon the SNR of the response. Grouping and summing responses to increase SNR or employing a cluster test may also prove useful.
Authors: Phamornsak Thienprasiddhi; Vivienne C Greenstein; Candice S Chen; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch; Donald C Hood Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Donald C Hood; Nitin Ohri; E Bo Yang; Christopher Rodarte; Xian Zhang; Brad Fortune; Chris A Johnson Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Scott Ketner; Christopher C Teng; Joshua R Ehrlich; Ali S Raza; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch; Donald C Hood Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2011-07-07 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: L De Santiago; A Fernández; R Blanco; C Pérez-Rico; J M Rodríguez-Ascariz; R Barea; J M Miguel-Jiménez; C Amo; E M Sánchez-Morla; L Boquete Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: Linda Semela; E Bo Yang; Thomas R Hedges; Laurel Vuong; Jeffery G Odel; Donald C Hood Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2006-10-31 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Donald C Hood; John Y Chen; E Bo Yang; Chris Rodarte; Adam S Wenick; Tomas M Grippo; Jeffrey G Odel; Robert Ritch Journal: Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc Date: 2006
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