BACKGROUND: Recent evidence indicates that an index of binocular activity may be found in some properties of steady-state visual evoked potentials (VEPs), such as amplitude facilitation and phase shortening. We evaluated binocular interactions with steady-state VEPs in normal subjects as well as in patients with concomitant strabismus and defective binocular vision. METHODS: Steady-state (8-Hz) VEPs to counterphased sinusoidal gratings (1.2 c/deg spatial frequency) of low contrast (3.2%) were recorded in 19 esotropic patients and in 18 age-matched controls. Patients had either anomalous retinal correspondence (ARC, n = 10) or suppression (n = 9) in casual seeing conditions (striated glasses). In all subjects, both binocular and monocular VEPs displayed a major component at twice the stimulation frequency (second harmonic), whose amplitude and phase were measured. A binocular interaction index was obtained by comparing binocular VEPs (BVEPs) with the sum (vectorial) of the two monocular VEPs (SMVEPs). RESULTS: In normal subjects, BVEPs were larger in amplitude than SMVEPs (facilitation), and shortened in latency (phase). On average, both ARC and suppression patients displayed loss in amplitude facilitation and absence of phase shortening. However, 50% of ARC patients showed clear VEP facilitation. In both ARC and suppression patients, the amplitude ratio BVEP/SMVEP was negatively correlated with the amount of the angle of deviation. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that losses in amplitude facilitation and phase shortening of binocular steady-state VEPs reflect abnormal binocular interactions associated with different forms of sensorial adaptation in concomitant strabismus.
BACKGROUND: Recent evidence indicates that an index of binocular activity may be found in some properties of steady-state visual evoked potentials (VEPs), such as amplitude facilitation and phase shortening. We evaluated binocular interactions with steady-state VEPs in normal subjects as well as in patients with concomitant strabismus and defective binocular vision. METHODS: Steady-state (8-Hz) VEPs to counterphased sinusoidal gratings (1.2 c/deg spatial frequency) of low contrast (3.2%) were recorded in 19 esotropic patients and in 18 age-matched controls. Patients had either anomalous retinal correspondence (ARC, n = 10) or suppression (n = 9) in casual seeing conditions (striated glasses). In all subjects, both binocular and monocular VEPs displayed a major component at twice the stimulation frequency (second harmonic), whose amplitude and phase were measured. A binocular interaction index was obtained by comparing binocular VEPs (BVEPs) with the sum (vectorial) of the two monocular VEPs (SMVEPs). RESULTS: In normal subjects, BVEPs were larger in amplitude than SMVEPs (facilitation), and shortened in latency (phase). On average, both ARC and suppression patients displayed loss in amplitude facilitation and absence of phase shortening. However, 50% of ARCpatients showed clear VEP facilitation. In both ARC and suppression patients, the amplitude ratio BVEP/SMVEP was negatively correlated with the amount of the angle of deviation. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that losses in amplitude facilitation and phase shortening of binocular steady-state VEPs reflect abnormal binocular interactions associated with different forms of sensorial adaptation in concomitant strabismus.