Literature DB >> 6641866

Monocular and binocular evoked average potential field topography: upper and lower hemiretinal stimuli.

E Adachi-Usami, D Lehmann.   

Abstract

Scalp potentials evoked by monocular and binocular 2/s checkerboard reversals with checks of 56 or 14 min were recorded from four midline electrodes between inion and 7.5 cm above inion vs a common anterior reference in 31 normals. The electrode location and latency of the evoked maximal occipitally positive potential difference between any 2 of the 5 electrodes, between 80 and 140 ms latency was determined in each run. Mean maximum locations over subjects for upper hemiretinal, binocular stimuli were more anterior than for monocular stimuli; for lower hemiretinal stimuli, inverted location differences were found. Binocular responses also had shorter latencies than monocular responses. Since area 18 is more anterior to 17 for upper, more posterior to 17 for lower hemiretinal projection to cortex, the results suggest that neurons which respond only if both eyes are simultaneously stimulated are more frequent in higher than lower order visual areas.

Mesh:

Year:  1983        PMID: 6641866     DOI: 10.1007/BF00239198

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  22 in total

Review 1.  Recent advances in electrical recording from the human brain.

Authors:  D Regan
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1975-02-06       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Sustained cortical potentials evoked in humans by binocularly correlated, uncorrelated and disparate dynamic random-dot stimuli.

Authors:  D Lehmann; W Skrandies; C Lindenmaier
Journal:  Neurosci Lett       Date:  1978-11       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  Reference-free identification of components of checkerboard-evoked multichannel potential fields.

Authors:  D Lehmann; W Skrandies
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1980-06

4.  The polarity inversion of scalp potentials evoked by upper and lower half-field stimulus patterns: latency or surface distribution differences?

Authors:  D A Jeffreys; A T Smith
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1979-04

5.  Are field potentials an appropriate method for demonstrating connections in the brain?

Authors:  W Skrandies; H Wässle; L Peichl
Journal:  Exp Neurol       Date:  1978-07       Impact factor: 5.330

6.  Intracerebral and scalp fields evoked by hemiretinal checkerboard reversal, and modeling of their dipole generators.

Authors:  D Lehmann; T M Darcey; W Skrandies
Journal:  Adv Neurol       Date:  1982

7.  Average multichannel EEG potential fields evoked from upper and lower hemi-retina: latency differences.

Authors:  D Lehman; H P Meles; Z Mir
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1977-11

8.  Checkerboard-evoked potentials: topography and latency for onset, offset, and reversal.

Authors:  W Skrandies; M Richter; D Lehmann
Journal:  Prog Brain Res       Date:  1980       Impact factor: 2.453

9.  The binocular: monocular sensitivity ratio for movement detection varies with temporal frequency.

Authors:  D Rose
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1980       Impact factor: 1.490

10.  Visual reaction time as a function of locus, area, and complexity of stimulus.

Authors:  A Tartaglione; E Favale; A Benton
Journal:  Arch Psychiatr Nervenkr (1970)       Date:  1979-07-04
View more
  10 in total

1.  Mechanism of binocular interaction in refraction errors: study using pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials.

Authors:  A di Summa; S Fusina; L Bertolasi; S Vicentini; S Perlini; L G Bongiovanni; A Polo
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 2.379

2.  Binocular summation in visual evoked cortical potential in patients who have significantly different P100 peak latencies in their two eyes.

Authors:  Atsushi Mizota; Akiko Hoshino; Emiko Adachi-Usami; Naoya Fujimoto
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 3.117

3.  The topographic distribution of the magnetic P100M to full- and half-field stimulation.

Authors:  G Harding; B Janday; R Armstrong
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 2.379

4.  Monocular and binocular steady-state flicker VEPs: frequency-response functions to sinusoidal and square-wave luminance modulation.

Authors:  David S Nicol; Ruth Hamilton; Uma Shahani; Daphne L McCulloch
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-01-29       Impact factor: 2.379

5.  Hemiretinal stimuli elicit different amplitudes in the pattern electroretinogram.

Authors:  M Yoshii; A Päärmann
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 2.379

6.  Characteristics of Pattern Visual Evoked Potential in Two Eyes with Varying Visual Acuity in One Eye and Forensic Application.

Authors:  Fu-Quan Jia; Yu-Guang Liang; Xin-Yuan Zhang; Fang-Liang Luo; Yan-He Xiong; Long-Long Cheng; Ji-Hui Liu
Journal:  Curr Med Sci       Date:  2018-04-30

7.  Source derivation of the visually evoked potential.

Authors:  J G Flanagan; G F Harding
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1986-01-31       Impact factor: 2.379

8.  Monocular and binocular neuronal activity in human visual cortex revealed by electrical brain activity mapping.

Authors:  W Skrandies
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Macular oscillatory potentials in humans. Macular OPs.

Authors:  Y Miyake
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 2.379

Review 10.  Neuromorphic Stereo Vision: A Survey of Bio-Inspired Sensors and Algorithms.

Authors:  Lea Steffen; Daniel Reichard; Jakob Weinland; Jacques Kaiser; Arne Roennau; Rüdiger Dillmann
Journal:  Front Neurorobot       Date:  2019-05-28       Impact factor: 2.650

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.