Literature DB >> 93635

Pattern reversal evoked cortical responses in normals. A study of different methods of stimulation and potential reproducibility.

O Meienberg, L Kutak, C Smolenski, H P Ludin.   

Abstract

Using a commercially available television set for stimulation of 78 healthy subjects, the upper limit of normal for the latency of the major positive wave (p 100) of checkerboard pattern reversal evoked potentials is practically the same as that obtained by employing slide projector combined with a rotating mirror. Potentials evoked by a small pattern, for purely foveal stimulation, were often difficult to evaluate exactly. Fixation of a large pattern at the upper border of the stimulus field brought no advantages as compared to the usual fixation in the center. Continuous prolonged recordings, with successive averaging of 64 pattern reversals, confirmed statements that only the major positive wave and its latency are constantly reproducible without being influenced by fatigue or inattention. Repeated examinations in the same subjects at intervals of 2 weeks showed a considerable spread of the latencies from one session to the other but the absolute values always ranged within the normal. More or less large latency differences (up to 12ms with large pattern stimulation) were found in every subject at least once. A longer latency found at a control examination, or a newly appearing latency difference, therefore do not prove a fresh optic nerve lesion as long as the absolute values are still within the limits of normal. From repeated examinations it could also be seen that foveal stimulation with a small pattern is not suitable for routine examinations because of high variation in the results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1979        PMID: 93635     DOI: 10.1007/bf00313002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurol        ISSN: 0340-5354            Impact factor:   4.849


  14 in total

1.  Visual evoked responses in the diagnosis and management of patients suspected of multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  P Asselman; D W Chadwick; D C Marsden
Journal:  Brain       Date:  1975-06       Impact factor: 13.501

2.  The comparison of small-size rectangle and checkerboard stimulation for the evaluation of delayed visual evoked responses in patients suspected of multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  M Hennerici; D Wenzel; H J Freund
Journal:  Brain       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 13.501

3.  Pattern evoked cortical potentials employing a television pattern stimulator.

Authors:  R S Clemett; R D Jones; H J Wales
Journal:  Trans Ophthalmol Soc N Z       Date:  1977

4.  Delayed visual evoked response in optic neuritis.

Authors:  A M Halliday; W I McDonald; J Mushin
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1972-05-06       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Evoked cortical responses to checkerboard patterns: effect of check-size as a function of visual acuity.

Authors:  M R Harter; C T White
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1970-01

6.  Evoked cortical responses to checkerboard patterns: effect of check-size as a function of retinal eccentricity.

Authors:  M R Harter
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1970-12       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  Pattern shift visual evoked responses. Two hundred patients with optic neuritis and/or multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  F Shahrokhi; K H Chiappa; R R Young
Journal:  Arch Neurol       Date:  1978-02

8.  Visual pattern evoked responses and blink reflexes in assessment of MS diagnosis. A clinical study of 135 multiple sclerosis/pathol.

Authors:  K Lowitzsch; U Kuhnt; C Sakmann; K Maurer; H C Hopf; D Schott; K Thäter
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  1976-07-15       Impact factor: 4.849

9.  Visual evoked responses and visual symptoms in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  T Hoeppner; F Lolas
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  1978-06       Impact factor: 10.154

10.  Pattern visual evoked responses in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  J A Zeese
Journal:  Arch Neurol       Date:  1977-05
View more
  7 in total

1.  Pattern-onset visual evoked potentials in suspected multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  M J Aminoff; A L Ochs
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  1981-07       Impact factor: 10.154

2.  The reproducibility of binocular pattern reversal visual evoked potentials: a single subject design.

Authors:  Tessa B Mellow; Alki Liasis; Ruth Lyons; Dorothy A Thompson
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-03-25       Impact factor: 2.379

3.  Changes induced by short-term xylene exposure in human evoked potentials.

Authors:  A M Seppäläinen; A Laine; T Salmi; V Riihimäki; E Verkkala
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 3.015

4.  Subclinical visual field defects in multiple sclerosis. Demonstration and quantification with automated perimetry, and comparison with visually evoked potentials.

Authors:  O Mienberg; J Flammer; H P Ludin
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  1982       Impact factor: 4.849

5.  Low luminance/eyes closed and monochromatic stimulations reduce variability of flash visual evoked potential latency.

Authors:  Senthil Kumar Subramanian; Giriwar Singh Gaur; Sunil K Narayan
Journal:  Ann Indian Acad Neurol       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.383

Review 6.  The application of electro- and magneto-encephalography in tinnitus research - methods and interpretations.

Authors:  Peyman Adjamian
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 4.003

7.  Improved characterization of visual evoked potentials in multiple sclerosis by topographic analysis.

Authors:  Martin Hardmeier; Florian Hatz; Yvonne Naegelin; Darren Hight; Christian Schindler; Ludwig Kappos; Margitta Seeck; Christoph M Michel; Peter Fuhr
Journal:  Brain Topogr       Date:  2013-10-02       Impact factor: 3.020

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.