Literature DB >> 9856787

Stimulus duration, neural adaptation, and sweep visual evoked potential acuity estimates.

W H Ridder1, D McCulloch, A M Herbert.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Results in several studies have suggested that the visual evoked potential (VEP) amplitude can vary with stimulus duration. The purpose of this study was to determine whether acuity estimates obtained by extrapolation of the sweep VEP are altered by this adaptation effect.
METHODS: Sweep VEP data were obtained from 16 healthy observers under binocular viewing conditions. Data were acquired with a commercially available VEP unit using standard electrode recording techniques. Three sweeps (high spatial frequencies, medium spatial frequencies, and low spatial frequencies) were run. The subjects' visual acuity at the monitor distance was 6/6 for the high spatial frequency sweep. For the medium and low spatial frequency sweeps, the subjects were dioptrically blurred to 6/15 (medium spatial frequencies) or 6/30 (low spatial frequencies) at the monitor distance. Each sweep consisted of six spatial frequencies (contrast 80%; temporal frequency (TF) = 7.5 Hz; screen luminance = 100 candela [cd]/m2). For each spatial frequency, the stimulus duration was 8 seconds, partitioned into 1-second bins. A minimum of eight sweeps were obtained per subject. An acuity estimate was obtained for each second's data by fitting a line to the high spatial frequencies (excluding noise) and extrapolating this line to the x-axis. With this technique, estimates could not be obtained for 29 of 384 possible acuities.
RESULTS: The sweep VEP acuities for the 16 subjects did not change significantly over the 8 seconds of data collection for the high, medium, or low spatial frequency sweep (repeated measures analysis of variance [ANOVA]: high, P = 0.25; medium, P = 0.50; low, P = 0.23). In any given subject, there was a 1- to 2-octave range in acuity estimates over the 8 seconds of stimulus presentation (high, 1.23+/-0.417 octaves; medium, 1.41+/-0.593 octaves; low, 1.52+/-0.475 octaves; mean +/- SD).
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that there is not a significant change in sweep VEP acuity estimates over an 8-second stimulus presentation. Thus, neural adaptation does not significantly affect the clinical use of the sweep VEP.

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9856787

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci        ISSN: 0146-0404            Impact factor:   4.799


  14 in total

1.  Adaptation dynamics in pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials.

Authors:  S P Heinrich; M Bach
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 2.379

2.  Reliability of acuities determined with the sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP).

Authors:  William H Ridder; Anna Tong; Theresa Floresca
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 2.379

3.  A new method of extrapolating the sweep pattern visual evoked potential acuity.

Authors:  Peng Zhou; Ming-Wei Zhao; Xiao-Xin Li; Xiao-Feng Hu; Xi Wu; Lan-Jun Niu; Wen-Zhen Yu; Xiu-Lan Xu
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2007-10-31       Impact factor: 2.379

4.  A comparison of contrast sensitivity and sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP) acuity estimates in normal humans.

Authors:  William H Ridder
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-08-14       Impact factor: 2.379

5.  Objective assessment of visual acuity: a refined model for analyzing the sweep VEP.

Authors:  Torsten Strasser; Fadi Nasser; Hana Langrová; Ditta Zobor; Łukasz Lisowski; Dominic Hillerkuss; Carla Sailer; Anne Kurtenbach; Eberhart Zrenner
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-01-29       Impact factor: 2.379

6.  Comparing enfant and PowerDiva sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP) acuity estimates.

Authors:  William H Ridder; Bradley S Waite; Timothy F Melton
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-08-24       Impact factor: 2.379

7.  Methods of visual acuity determination with the spatial frequency sweep visual evoked potential.

Authors:  William H Ridder
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.379

8.  Similarities and differences between behavioral and electrophysiological visual acuity thresholds in healthy infants during the second half of the first year of life.

Authors:  Claudia Polevoy; Gina Muckle; Jean R Séguin; Emmanuel Ouellet; Dave Saint-Amour
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-02-20       Impact factor: 2.379

9.  Effects of sweep VEP parameters on visual acuity and contrast thresholds in children and adults.

Authors:  Fahad M Almoqbel; Naveen K Yadav; Susan J Leat; Liseann M Head; Elizabeth L Irving
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-08-06       Impact factor: 3.117

Review 10.  VEP estimation of visual acuity: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ruth Hamilton; Michael Bach; Sven P Heinrich; Michael B Hoffmann; J Vernon Odom; Daphne L McCulloch; Dorothy A Thompson
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-06-02       Impact factor: 2.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.