| Literature DB >> 23630461 |
C Van den Boomen1, J C de Graaff, T P V M de Jong, C J Kalkman, C Kemner.
Abstract
Gamma-Aminobutyric Acid (GABA) inhibitory interneurons play an important role in visual processing, as is revealed by studies administering drugs in human and monkey adults. Investigating this process in children requires different methodologies, due to ethical considerations. The current study aimed to investigate whether a new method, being general anesthesia using Sevoflurane, can be used to trace the effects of GABAergic modulation on visual brain functioning in children. To this aim, visual processing was investigated in children aged 4-12 years who were scheduled for minor urologic procedures under general anesthesia in day-care treatment. In a visual segmentation task, the difference in Event-Related Potential (ERP) response to homogeneous and textured stimuli was investigated. In addition, psychophysical performance on visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were measured. Results were compared between before and shortly after anesthesia. In two additional studies, effects at 1 day after anesthesia and possible effects of task-repetition were investigated. ERP results showed longer latency and lower amplitude of the Texture Negativity (TN) component shortly after compared to before anesthesia. No effects of anesthesia on psychophysical measurements were found. No effects at 1 day after anesthesia or of repetition were revealed either. These results show that GABAergic modulation through general anesthesia affects ERP reflections of visual segmentation in a similar way in children as benzodiazepine does in adults, but that effects are not permanent. This demonstrates that ERP measurement after anesthesia is a successful method to study effects of GABAergic modulation in children.Entities:
Keywords: EEG; GABA; development; general anesthesia; psychophysics; segmentation; vision
Year: 2013 PMID: 23630461 PMCID: PMC3632787 DOI: 10.3389/fncel.2013.00042
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Neurosci ISSN: 1662-5102 Impact factor: 5.505
Figure 1Stimuli used for investigation of visual segmentation: checkered stimulus (A) and homogeneous stimulus (B).
Figure 2Examples of stimuli for investigation of contrast sensitivity (A) and visual acuity (B).
Figure 3Difference waves of grand averages at Oz electrode evoked by checkered vs. homogeneous stimuli in the pre-test (solid line) and post-test (dashed line) of the short-term study.
Overview of EEG and psychophysical results of study 1, 2, and 3.
| TP amplitude | 3.0 ± 0.6 | 2.7 ± 0.7 | 0.40 (18) | 0.702 |
| TP latency | 131 ± 8.5 | 139 ± 11.2 | –1.74 (18) | 0.099 |
| TN amplitude | −4.9 ± 1.0 | −2.9 ± 0.7 | –2.46 (18) | 0.024* |
| TN latency | 196 ± 12.1 | 205 ± 11.7 | –2.42 (18) | 0.027* |
| Acuity | 15.6 ± 0.84 | 16.1 ± 0.93 | –0.92 (20) | 0.37 |
| Contrast | 1.1 ± 0.06 | 1.1 ± 0.10 | –0.75 (20) | 0.46 |
| TP amplitude | 2.4 ± 0.9 | 2.2 ± 0.5 | 0.31 (7) | 0.767 |
| TP latency | 130 ± 6.0 | 134 ± 7.6 | –0.48 (7) | 0.646 |
| TN amplitude | −3.6 ± 0.7 | −3.4 ± 1.0 | –0.19 (7) | 0.853 |
| TN latency | 187 ± 5.5 | 182 ± 7.7 | 0.56 (7) | 0.596 |
| Acuity | 18.6 ± 1.8 | 19.6 ± 2.3 | –0.53 (12) | 0.603 |
| Contrast | 1.3 ± 0.44 | 1.5 ± 0.49 | –0.76 (12) | 0.463 |
| TP amplitude | 4.7 ± 0.6 | 3.8 ± 0.7 | 0.79 (8) | 0.455 |
| TP latency | 131 ± 9.2 | 124 ± 5.6 | 0.80 (8) | 0.446 |
| TN amplitude | −0.8 ± 0.8 | −2.1 ± 0.6 | 1.46 (8) | 0.182 |
| TN latency | 201 ± 11.3 | 198 ± 12.8 | 0.59 (8) | 0.573 |
Asterisks indicate significant effects.
Figure 4Difference waves of grand averages at Oz electrode evoked by checkered vs. homogeneous stimuli in the pre-test (solid line) and post-test (dashed line) of the long-term study.
Figure 5Difference waves of grand averages at Oz electrode evoked by checkered vs. homogeneous stimuli in the pre-test (solid line) and post-test (dashed line) of the control study.