Literature DB >> 22426575

Effect of different stimulus configurations on the visual evoked potential (VEP).

Naveen K Yadav1, Diana P Ludlam, Kenneth J Ciuffreda.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess changes in the response profile of the pattern visual evoked potential (VEP) using three stimulus configurations simulating visual-field scotomas: central circular and central blank fields increasing incrementally in diameter from 1° to 15°, hemi-field, and quadrant patterns. Five visually normal adult subjects (ages 22-68 years) were tested binocularly at 1 m for each stimulus configuration on 5 separate days. A checkerboard test pattern (64 × 64 black-and-white checks, 85% contrast, 64 cd/m(2) luminance, 20 s of stimulus duration, 2-Hz temporal frequency) was used. The group mean VEP amplitude increased in a linear manner with increase in the central circular diameter (y = 0.805x + 2.00; r = 0.986) and decrease in central blank field diameter (y = -0.769x + 16.22; r = 0.987). There was no significant change in latency in nearly all cases. The group mean coefficient of variability results indicated that the VEP amplitude was repeatable for the different stimulus configurations. The finding of VEP response linearity for the circular stimulus fields, and repeatability for all stimulus configurations, suggests that the clinician may be able to use the VEP technique with the suggested test patterns as a rapid and simple tool for objective assessment for several types of visual-field defects for a range of abnormal visual conditions and special populations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22426575     DOI: 10.1007/s10633-012-9319-0

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


  35 in total

1.  Guideline 5: Guidelines for standard electrode position nomenclature.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.177

2.  The pattern-evoked potential in compression of the anterior visual pathways.

Authors:  A M Halliday; E Halliday; A Kriss; W I McDonald; J Mushin
Journal:  Brain       Date:  1976-06       Impact factor: 13.501

3.  Objective detection of hemifield and quadrantic field defects by visual evoked cortical potentials.

Authors:  M S Bradnam; D M Montgomery; A L Evans; D Keating; E A McClure; B E Damato; R McFadzean
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 4.638

4.  Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests.

Authors:  J Katz; A Sommer
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1988-09

5.  Pattern electroretinogram and visual evoked potential amplitudes are influenced by different stimulus field sizes and scotomata.

Authors:  A Junghardt; H Wildberger; Y Robert; B Török
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 2.379

6.  Pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials and retinal eccentricity.

Authors:  J T Meredith; G G Celesia
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1982-03

7.  Macula and periphery: their contributions to the visual evoked potentials (VEP) in humans.

Authors:  J Röver; G Schaubele; K Berndt
Journal:  Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1980

8.  Field-specific visual-evoked potentials: identifying field defects in vigabatrin-treated children.

Authors:  G F A Harding; E L Spencer; J M Wild; M Conway; R L Bohn
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2002-04-23       Impact factor: 9.910

9.  Visual evoked responses in the assessment of field defects in glaucoma.

Authors:  J M Cappin; S Nissim
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1975-01
View more
  9 in total

1.  Effect of simulated octant visual field defects on the visual evoked potential (VEP).

Authors:  Naveen K Yadav; Kenneth J Ciuffreda
Journal:  J Optom       Date:  2014-06-12

2.  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

3.  Objective assessment of the human visual attentional state.

Authors:  Kevin T Willeford; Kenneth J Ciuffreda; Naveen K Yadav; Diana P Ludlam
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-10-31       Impact factor: 2.379

4.  The effect of spectral filters on VEP and alpha-wave responses.

Authors:  Kevin T Willeford; Vanessa Fimreite; Kenneth J Ciuffreda
Journal:  J Optom       Date:  2015-08-17

5.  Visual evoked potential repeatability using the Diopsys NOVA LX fixed protocol in normal older adults.

Authors:  Richard C Trevino; Carolyn E Majcher; Adreain M Henry; Melinda Rodriguez; William E Sponsel
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-09-07

6.  Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Covert Attention With Different Degrees of Central Visual Field Defects: An ERP and sLORETA Study.

Authors:  Chaoqun Shi; Sinan Liu; Bingyang Zhao; Yu Meng; Xin Gong; Xiping Chen; Luyang Tao
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 4.925

7.  Colored filters enhancing visual evoked potential (VEP) response in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Naveen K Yadav; Valerie L Quan
Journal:  J Optom       Date:  2021-10-20

8.  Effect of chromatic filters on visual performance in individuals with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI): A pilot study.

Authors:  Vanessa Fimreite; Kevin T Willeford; Kenneth J Ciuffreda
Journal:  J Optom       Date:  2016-05-30

Review 9.  What can visual electrophysiology tell about possible visual-field defects in paediatric patients.

Authors:  Siân E Handley; Maja Šuštar; Manca Tekavčič Pompe
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2021-07-16       Impact factor: 3.775

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.