Literature DB >> 15881265

Determining abnormal latencies of multifocal visual evoked potentials: a monocular analysis.

Donald C Hood1, Nitin Ohri, E Bo Yang, Christopher Rodarte, Xian Zhang, Brad Fortune, Chris A Johnson.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To describe a methodology for measuring abnormal timing of monocular multifocal visual evoked potentials (mfVEP).
METHODS: The mfVEPs from 100 individuals with normal visual fields and normal fundus exams were analyzed. The stimulus was a 60 sector, pattern-reversing dartboard display. For each of the 60 locations of the dartboard and each channel and each eye, a template was derived based upon the average of the responses from the 100 normal individuals. In deriving this template, care was taken to exclude those responses reversed in polarity as compared to the average response. The best array of responses for each individual was compared to these templates. The relative latency of each response was measured as the temporal shift producing the best cross-correlation value.
RESULTS: The 95% confidence interval (CI) decreased as the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the mfVEP responses increased. For example, the 95% CI decreased from over 17 ms to under 9 ms as the SNR increased. Grouping and summing the responses also lead to an increase in SNR and a decrease in CI. Because the number of points exceeding the CI is not randomly distributed among normal individuals, a cluster criterion (e.g. two or more contiguous points within a hemisphere exceeding a given confidence interval) can be helpful. For example, while 18% of the eyes had 5 or more points exceeding the 5% confidence interval, only 6.5% of the eyes had a cluster of 5 of these points. The correlation between relative latency and age was relatively low (r = 0.46).
CONCLUSION: For detecting abnormalities in the timing of monocular, mfVEP responses, a template method provides a reasonable approach. In devising a particular test for abnormal timing, the CI should be based upon the SNR of the response. In addition, grouping and summing responses to increase SNR or employing a cluster test may also prove useful.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15881265     DOI: 10.1007/s10633-004-5512-0

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


  22 in total

1.  Effect of stimulus check size on multifocal visual evoked potentials.

Authors:  Chandra Balachandran; Alexander I Klistorner; Stuart L Graham
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 2.379

Review 2.  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

3.  Conventional pattern-reversal VEPs are not equivalent to summed multifocal VEPs.

Authors:  Brad Fortune; Donald C Hood
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 4.799

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.  Increasing the sensitivity of the multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) technique: incorporating information from higher order kernels using a principal component analysis method.

Authors:  Xian Zhang; Donald C Hood
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 2.379

6.  Determining abnormal interocular latencies of multifocal visual evoked potentials.

Authors:  Donald C Hood; Xian Zhang; Christopher Rodarte; E Bo Yang; Nitin Ohri; Brad Fortune; Chris A Johnson
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.379

7.  Visual evoked potentials in the older population: age and gender effects.

Authors:  K W Mitchell; J W Howe; S R Spencer
Journal:  Clin Phys Physiol Meas       Date:  1987-11

8.  Developmental and aging changes in somatosensory, auditory and visual evoked potentials.

Authors:  T Allison; A L Hume; C C Wood; W R Goff
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1984-07

9.  Normative ranges and specificity of the multifocal VEP.

Authors:  Brad Fortune; Xian Zhang; Donald C Hood; Shaban Demirel; Chris A Johnson
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 2.379

10.  Detecting glaucomatous damage with multifocal visual evoked potentials: how can a monocular test work?

Authors:  Donald C Hood; Xian Zhang; Bryan J Winn
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 2.503

View more
  22 in total

1.  Reproducibility of multifocal VEP latency using different stimulus presentations.

Authors:  Prema Sriram; Alexander Klistorner; Hemamalini Arvind; Stuart L Graham
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 2.379

2.  Intertest variability of mfVEP amplitude: reducing its effect on the interpretation of sequential tests.

Authors:  A Klistorner; S L Graham
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-03-06       Impact factor: 2.379

3.  Correlation between full-field and multifocal VEPs in optic neuritis.

Authors:  Alexander Klistorner; Clare Fraser; Raymond Garrick; Stuart Graham; Hemamalini Arvind
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2007-08-07       Impact factor: 2.379

4.  Beta-zone parapapillary atrophy and multifocal visual evoked potentials in eyes with glaucomatous optic neuropathy.

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

5.  Improved measurement of intersession latency in mfVEPs.

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

6.  Exploring the methods of data analysis in multifocal visual evoked potentials.

Authors:  L Malmqvist; L De Santiago; C Fraser; A Klistorner; S Hamann
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 2.379

7.  Multifocal visual-evoked potential in unilateral compressive optic neuropathy.

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

8.  The role of the multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) latency in understanding optic nerve and retinal diseases.

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

9.  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

10.  The effects of optic disc drusen on the latency of the pattern-reversal checkerboard and multifocal visual evoked potentials.

Authors:  Tomas M Grippo; Isaac Ezon; Fabio N Kanadani; Boonchai Wangsupadilok; Celso Tello; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch; Donald C Hood
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2009-01-31       Impact factor: 4.799

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.