Literature DB >> 20101435

Some thoughts on the interpretation of steady-state evoked potentials.

Sven P Heinrich1.   

Abstract

Steady-state evoked potentials are popular due to their easy analysis in frequency space and the availability of methods for objective response detection. However, the interpretation of steady-state responses can be challenging due to their origin as a sequence of responses to single stimuli. In the present paper, issues of signal extinction and some characteristics of higher harmonics are illustrated based on simple model data for those readers who do not regularly hobnob with frequency-space representations of data. It is important to realize that the absence of a steady-state response does not prove the lack of neural activity. For the same underlying reasons, namely constructive and destructive superposition of individual responses, comparisons of amplitudes between experimental conditions are prone to inaccuracies. Thus, before inferring physiology from steady-state responses, one should consider an alternative explanation in terms of signal composition.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20101435     DOI: 10.1007/s10633-010-9212-7

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


  22 in total

1.  Adaptation dynamics in pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials.

Authors:  S P Heinrich; M Bach
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 2.379

2.  The use of QSD (q-sequence deconvolution) to recover superposed, transient evoked-responses.

Authors:  Don L Jewett; Gideon Caplovitz; Bill Baird; Michael Trumpis; Marram P Olson; Linda J Larson-Prior
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.708

3.  Fluctuations of steady-state VEPs: interaction of driven evoked potentials and the EEG.

Authors:  J Mast; J D Victor
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1991-05

4.  Visual evoked potential-based acuity assessment in normal vision, artificially degraded vision, and in patients.

Authors:  M Bach; J P Maurer; M E Wolf
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 4.638

5.  Theoretical considerations on the detection of evoked responses by means of the Rayleigh test.

Authors:  B Lütkenhöner
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol Suppl       Date:  1991

6.  Methodology to estimate the transient evoked responses for the generation of steady state responses.

Authors:  Jorge Bohórquez; Ozcan Ozdamar; Nuri Açikgöz; Erdem Yavuz
Journal:  Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc       Date:  2007

7.  ISCEV Standard for full-field clinical electroretinography (2008 update).

Authors:  M F Marmor; A B Fulton; G E Holder; Y Miyake; M Brigell; M Bach
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-11-22       Impact factor: 2.379

8.  Fast stimulus sequences improve the efficiency of event-related potential P300 recordings.

Authors:  Dominik Mell; Michael Bach; Sven P Heinrich
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2008-07-23       Impact factor: 2.390

9.  Objective response detection in the frequency domain.

Authors:  R A Dobie; M J Wilson
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1993 Nov-Dec

10.  Measurement of spatial contrast sensitivity with the swept contrast VEP.

Authors:  A M Norcia; C W Tyler; R D Hamer; W Wesemann
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 1.886

View more
  15 in total

1.  Disruption of the auditory response to a regular click train by a single, extra click.

Authors:  Bernd Lütkenhöner; Roy D Patterson
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-03-27       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 2.  The steady-state visual evoked potential in vision research: A review.

Authors:  Anthony M Norcia; L Gregory Appelbaum; Justin M Ales; Benoit R Cottereau; Bruno Rossion
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Relating the steady-state visual evoked potential to single-stimulus responses derived from m-sequence stimulation.

Authors:  Sven P Heinrich; Maresa Groten; Michael Bach
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-03-06       Impact factor: 2.379

4.  Can VEP-based acuity estimates in one eye be improved by applying knowledge from the other eye?

Authors:  Jessica Knötzele; Sven P Heinrich
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-06-03       Impact factor: 2.379

5.  Visual evoked potential-based acuity assessment: overestimation in amblyopia.

Authors:  Yaroslava Wenner; Sven P Heinrich; Christina Beisse; Antje Fuchs; Michael Bach
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-03-13       Impact factor: 2.379

Review 6.  Understanding individual face discrimination by means of fast periodic visual stimulation.

Authors:  Bruno Rossion
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-04-12       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 7.  VEP estimation of visual acuity: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ruth Hamilton; Michael Bach; Sven P Heinrich; Michael B Hoffmann; J Vernon Odom; Daphne L McCulloch; Dorothy A Thompson
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-06-02       Impact factor: 2.379

8.  Steady-state motion visual evoked potentials produced by oscillating Newton's rings: implications for brain-computer interfaces.

Authors:  Jun Xie; Guanghua Xu; Jing Wang; Feng Zhang; Yizhuo Zhang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-06-19       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  The power of rhythms: how steady-state evoked responses reveal early neurocognitive development.

Authors:  Claire Kabdebon; Ana Fló; Adélaïde de Heering; Richard Aslin
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2022-03-26       Impact factor: 7.400

10.  Face-evoked steady-state visual potentials: effects of presentation rate and face inversion.

Authors:  L Forest Gruss; Matthias J Wieser; Stefan R Schweinberger; Andreas Keil
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2012-11-27       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.