Sean I Chen1, Arvind Chandna2,3, Spero Nicholas2, Anthony M Norcia4. 1. The Galway Clinic, Doughiska, Galway, Ireland. 2. The Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute, San Francisco, California, United States. 3. Alder Hey Children's Hospital NHS Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom. 4. Department of Psychology, Stanford University, California, United States.
Abstract
Purpose: We measure neural responses associated with form and motion processing in children with anisometropia before and after treatment with spectacles and occlusion. Methods: In this prospective, case-control treatment study, 10 children with anisometropia and amblyopia and 16 age-matched visually normal children participated. Steady-state visual evoked potentials (VEP) were recorded from electrodes over the occipital cortex. The visual stimulus comprised a horizontal bar grating into which Vernier offsets were introduced and withdrawn periodically at 3.75 Hz. The VEP amplitude at 3.75 Hz (first harmonic [1F]) and 7.5 Hz (second harmonic [2F]) were recorded to index the sensitivity of form/position-sensitive versus motion/transient-sensitive neural populations, respectively. Response amplitude at 1F and 2F were recorded over a series of 10 logarithmically spaced offset sizes before and after treatment. Main outcome measures are VEP amplitude versus displacement functions, interocular response amplitude differences. Results: After relaxing into spectacles (minimally-treated state), form/position-sensitive responses in the dominant/less ametropic eye of the children with anisometropia were larger and responses in the more ametropic eye were smaller than those of controls. Motion-transient responses were equal to those of controls in the less ametropic eye, but were smaller than controls in the more ametropic eye. After treatment, responses did not differ from those of controls. Conclusions: Form and motion responses are differentially susceptible to neural deprivation via optical blur. Form responses are more plastic than motion responses in minimally-treated children with anisometropic amblyopia. Most treatment effects occurred above threshold range, suggesting some treatment effects are not detected clinically.
Purpose: We measure neural responses associated with form and motion processing in children with anisometropia before and after treatment with spectacles and occlusion. Methods: In this prospective, case-control treatment study, 10 children with anisometropia and amblyopia and 16 age-matched visually normal children participated. Steady-state visual evoked potentials (VEP) were recorded from electrodes over the occipital cortex. The visual stimulus comprised a horizontal bar grating into which Vernier offsets were introduced and withdrawn periodically at 3.75 Hz. The VEP amplitude at 3.75 Hz (first harmonic [1F]) and 7.5 Hz (second harmonic [2F]) were recorded to index the sensitivity of form/position-sensitive versus motion/transient-sensitive neural populations, respectively. Response amplitude at 1F and 2F were recorded over a series of 10 logarithmically spaced offset sizes before and after treatment. Main outcome measures are VEP amplitude versus displacement functions, interocular response amplitude differences. Results: After relaxing into spectacles (minimally-treated state), form/position-sensitive responses in the dominant/less ametropic eye of the children with anisometropia were larger and responses in the more ametropic eye were smaller than those of controls. Motion-transient responses were equal to those of controls in the less ametropic eye, but were smaller than controls in the more ametropic eye. After treatment, responses did not differ from those of controls. Conclusions: Form and motion responses are differentially susceptible to neural deprivation via optical blur. Form responses are more plastic than motion responses in minimally-treated children with anisometropic amblyopia. Most treatment effects occurred above threshold range, suggesting some treatment effects are not detected clinically.