Literature DB >> 15957608

Effect of defocusing and of distracted attention upon recordings of the visual evoked potential.

Eedy Mezer1, Yonatan Bahir, Rina Leibu, Ido Perlman.   

Abstract

Pattern reversal visual stimuli are used to evoke potentials (VEPs) for assessment of visual acuity and for localizing defects along the visual pathways. Our goal was to assess the importance of attention and defocusing to the recordings of pattern VEP. Forty-one volunteers with normal (6/6) corrected visual acuity participated in this study. Twenty-one were asked to defocus intentionally the visual stimulus (located 200 cm away) by fixating at a target 25 or 50 cm from the eye. Twenty other subjects performed auditory tasks to distract their attention from the visual stimulus. Pattern VEPs were elicited by different check sizes. The amplitude and time-to-peak of the P100 wave were measured. Intentional defocusing caused amplitude reduction and prolongation of the time-to-peak in young subjects (20-34 years old). With the smallest checks used (7.5') we could not record a reliable response from 43% of the young subjects (6 out of 14). In older patients (35-61 years old), intentional defocusing induced negligible effects on pattern VEPs regardless of check size. There were no effects of auditory distraction upon the pattern VEPs. Our data suggest that intentional defocusing can produce false positive results (reduced VEP with prolonged time-to-peak) only when small checks are used in young subjects. Divided attention has negligible effect on the recordings of pattern VEPs. With proper controls, the pattern VEP test can be used for objective assessment of visual function.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15957608     DOI: 10.1007/s10633-004-8055-5

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


  30 in total

1.  Changes in the static accommodation response with age.

Authors:  M Kalsi; G Heron; W N Charman
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  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

3.  The inability to ignore auditory distractors as a function of visual task perceptual load.

Authors:  Donald J Tellinghuisen; Erin J Nowak
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2003-07

4.  Standard for clinical electroretinography (2004 update).

Authors:  Michael F Marmor; Graham E Holder; Mathias W Seeliger; Shuichi Yamamoto
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 2.379

5.  Effect of attention on the VEP in binocular and monocular conditions.

Authors:  J Heravian-Shandiz; W A Douthwaite; T C Jenkins
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 3.117

6.  Visual evoked cortical potential can be used to differentiate between uncorrected refractive error and macular disorders.

Authors:  I Perlman; E Segev; N Mazawi; T Merhav-Armon; B Lei; R Leibu
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 2.379

7.  Subject cooperation and the visual evoked response.

Authors:  S M Uren; P Stewart; P A Crosby
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1979-06       Impact factor: 4.799

8.  Age-related changes in the latency of the visual evoked potential: influence of check size.

Authors:  S Sokol; A Moskowitz; V L Towle
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1981-05

9.  Effect of refractive error on the visual evoked response.

Authors:  D W Collins; W M Carroll; J L Black; M Walsh
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1979-01-27

10.  Preferential neural processing of attended stimuli in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and normal boys.

Authors:  J H Satterfield; A M Schell; T Nicholas
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 4.016

View more
  12 in total

1.  Waveform variance and latency jitter of the visual evoked potential in childhood.

Authors:  John P Kelly; Felix Darvas; Avery H Weiss
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-10-22       Impact factor: 2.379

2.  Short-duration transient visual evoked potential for objective measurement of refractive errors.

Authors:  Aashish Anand; Carlos Gustavo V De Moraes; Christopher C Teng; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch; Celso Tello
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 2.379

3.  Influence of rotating shift work on visual reaction time and visual evoked potential.

Authors:  Hemamalini R V; Krishnamurthy N; Saravanan A
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2014-10-20

4.  VEP analysis methods in children with optic nerve hypoplasia: relationship to visual acuity and optic disc diameter.

Authors:  John P Kelly; James O Phillips; Avery H Weiss
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-11-23       Impact factor: 2.379

5.  The mouse model of Down syndrome Ts65Dn presents visual deficits as assessed by pattern visual evoked potentials.

Authors:  Jonah Jacob Scott-McKean; Bo Chang; Ronald E Hurd; Steven Nusinowitz; Cecilia Schmidt; Muriel T Davisson; Alberto C S Costa
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2010-02-03       Impact factor: 4.799

6.  Repeatability of short-duration transient visual evoked potentials in normal subjects.

Authors:  Celso Tello; Carlos Gustavo V De Moraes; Tiago S Prata; Peter Derr; Jayson Patel; John Siegfried; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-01-29       Impact factor: 2.379

7.  The effect of acute sleep deprivation on visual evoked potentials in professional drivers.

Authors:  Melinda L Jackson; Rodney J Croft; Katherine Owens; Robert J Pierce; Gerard A Kennedy; David Crewther; Mark E Howard
Journal:  Sleep       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 5.849

8.  Effect of test duration on the visual-evoked potential (VEP) and alpha-wave responses.

Authors:  Kevin T Willeford; Kenneth J Ciuffreda; Naveen K Yadav
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-12-01       Impact factor: 2.379

9.  Effects of refractive errors on visual evoked magnetic fields.

Authors:  Masaya Suzuki; Mizuki Nagae; Yuko Nagata; Naoya Kumagai; Koji Inui; Ryusuke Kakigi
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-11-09       Impact factor: 2.209

10.  Dominant Eye and Visual Evoked Potential of Patients with Myopic Anisometropia.

Authors:  Qing Wang; Yili Wu; Wenwen Liu; Lin Gao
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.