Roman Kessler1, Sven P Heinrich2. 1. Department of Neuropsychology, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany. rkesslerx@gmail.com. 2. Eye Center, Faculty of Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: According to the cruciform model, the upper and lower halves of the visual field representation in the primary visual cortex are located mainly on the opposite sides of the calcarine sulcus. Such a shape would have consequences for the surface-recorded visual evoked potential (VEP), as V1 responses to stimulation of the upper and lower hemifield manifest with opposite polarity (i.e., polarity inversion). However, the steady-state VEP results from a complex superposition of response components from different cortical sources, which can obscure the inversion of polarity. The present study assesses the issue for different stimulation frequencies which result in different patterns of superposition in the steady-state response. METHODS: Sequences of brief pattern-onset stimuli were presented at different stimulation rates ranging from 2 Hz (transient VEP) to 13 Hz (steady-state VEP). The upper and lower hemifields were tested separately and simultaneously. The data were assessed both in the time domain and in the frequency domain. RESULTS: Comparing the responses to the stimulation of upper and lower hemifield, polarity inversion was present within a limited time interval following individual stimulus onsets. With increasing frequency, this resulted in an approximate inversion of the full steady-state response and consequently in a phase shift of approximately 180° in the time-domain response. Polarity inversion was more prominent at electrode Pz, also for transient responses. Our data also demonstrated that the sum of the hemifield responses is a good approximation of the full-field response. CONCLUSION: While the basic phenomenon of polarity inversion occurs irrespective of the stimulus frequency, its relative impact on the steady-state response as a whole is the largest for high stimulation rates. We propose that this is because longer-lasting response components from other visual areas are not well represented in the steady-state VEP at higher frequencies.
PURPOSE: According to the cruciform model, the upper and lower halves of the visual field representation in the primary visual cortex are located mainly on the opposite sides of the calcarine sulcus. Such a shape would have consequences for the surface-recorded visual evoked potential (VEP), as V1 responses to stimulation of the upper and lower hemifield manifest with opposite polarity (i.e., polarity inversion). However, the steady-state VEP results from a complex superposition of response components from different cortical sources, which can obscure the inversion of polarity. The present study assesses the issue for different stimulation frequencies which result in different patterns of superposition in the steady-state response. METHODS: Sequences of brief pattern-onset stimuli were presented at different stimulation rates ranging from 2 Hz (transient VEP) to 13 Hz (steady-state VEP). The upper and lower hemifields were tested separately and simultaneously. The data were assessed both in the time domain and in the frequency domain. RESULTS: Comparing the responses to the stimulation of upper and lower hemifield, polarity inversion was present within a limited time interval following individual stimulus onsets. With increasing frequency, this resulted in an approximate inversion of the full steady-state response and consequently in a phase shift of approximately 180° in the time-domain response. Polarity inversion was more prominent at electrode Pz, also for transient responses. Our data also demonstrated that the sum of the hemifield responses is a good approximation of the full-field response. CONCLUSION: While the basic phenomenon of polarity inversion occurs irrespective of the stimulus frequency, its relative impact on the steady-state response as a whole is the largest for high stimulation rates. We propose that this is because longer-lasting response components from other visual areas are not well represented in the steady-state VEP at higher frequencies.
Authors: Francesco Di Russo; Antígona Martínez; Martin I Sereno; Sabrina Pitzalis; Steven A Hillyard Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Michael B Hoffmann; Sven P Heinrich; Hagen Thieme; Khaldoon O Al-Nosairy Journal: Klin Monbl Augenheilkd Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 0.700