OBJECTIVE: To explore the influence of environmental conditions on pattern visual evoked potential (VEP) recordings. METHODS: Fourteen subjects with no known ocular pathology were recruited for the study. In an attempt to optimize the recording conditions, VEP recordings were performed in both the seated and recumbent positions. Comparisons were made between recordings using either LCD or CRT displays and recordings obtained in silence or with quiet background music. Paired recordings (in which only one variable was changed) were analyzed for changes in P100 latency, RMS noise, and variability. RESULTS: Baseline RMS noise demonstrated a significant decrease in the variability during the first 50msec accompanied by a 73% decrease in recording time for recumbent position when compared to the seated position (p<0.05). Visual evoked potentials recorded using LCD monitors demonstrated a significant increase in the P100 latency when compared to CRT recordings in the same subjects. The addition of background music did not affect the amount of RMS noise during the first 50msec of the recordings. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the use of the recumbent position increases patient comfort and improves the signal to noise ratio. In contrast, the addition of background music to relax the patient did not improve the recording signal. Furthermore, the study illustrates the importance of avoiding low-contrast visual stimulation patterns obtained with LCD as they lead to higher latencies resulting in false positive recordings. These findings are important when establishing or modifying a pattern VEP recording protocol.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the influence of environmental conditions on pattern visual evoked potential (VEP) recordings. METHODS: Fourteen subjects with no known ocular pathology were recruited for the study. In an attempt to optimize the recording conditions, VEP recordings were performed in both the seated and recumbent positions. Comparisons were made between recordings using either LCD or CRT displays and recordings obtained in silence or with quiet background music. Paired recordings (in which only one variable was changed) were analyzed for changes in P100 latency, RMS noise, and variability. RESULTS: Baseline RMS noise demonstrated a significant decrease in the variability during the first 50msec accompanied by a 73% decrease in recording time for recumbent position when compared to the seated position (p<0.05). Visual evoked potentials recorded using LCD monitors demonstrated a significant increase in the P100 latency when compared to CRT recordings in the same subjects. The addition of background music did not affect the amount of RMS noise during the first 50msec of the recordings. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the use of the recumbent position increases patient comfort and improves the signal to noise ratio. In contrast, the addition of background music to relax the patient did not improve the recording signal. Furthermore, the study illustrates the importance of avoiding low-contrast visual stimulation patterns obtained with LCD as they lead to higher latencies resulting in false positive recordings. These findings are important when establishing or modifying a pattern VEP recording protocol.