A Clinical Method for Obtaining Pattern Visual Evoked Responses

Behrman, Joan; Nissim, Sarah; Arden, G. B.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-8231-7_19

Cited by 22 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this way the pattern reverses. Such 'pattern reversal' stimuli are most effective in evoking cortical potentials, and may be produced mechanically, optically or, as we do, by a polaroid technique (Behrman et al 1972). The responses are large and they can very often be seen in the normal EEG, but the method has theoretical disadvantages.…”

Section: Referencesmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…It can be seen that when the screen is far from the patient, so that the individual squares subtend about 9', the amplitude of the response increases as the screen is unmasked (Fig 1, left) up to a visual angle of about 20, but after this further increasing screen size has no effect upon the response: thus only the fovea and parafovea can contribute io the cortical activity. When the screen is brought close to the patient a very different situation occurs: the smallest screen (Reproducedfrom Behrman et al 1972 by kindpermission) area (containing very few squares) that can evoke a measurable response now completely covers the foveal and parafoveal area, and the response amplitude increases as more and more screen is unmasked. In other words, we can obtain responses due to fovea or periphery simply by choosing the correct distance of the screen from the patient.…”

Section: Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Recent Advances in Visual Sciences

Arden

1973

Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Referencesmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent Advances in Visual Sciences

Arden

1973

Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Several reports have concluded, from the studies of effects of stimulus field size or experimental scotoma on the pattern visual evoked potentials (P-VEps) in normal subjects [1][2][3][4], that the P-VEP recorded from the occipital midline arises predominantly from stimulation of the macula.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual evoked potentials in macular hole

1991

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pattern reversal visual evoked potentials (VEPs) with checks of 50' and 12' were recorded in 15 patients with idiopathic unilateral macular hole. VEPs from the affected eyes were reduced in amplitude compared with those from the fellow eyes, especially with checks of 12' (percentage of the amplitude in the affected eye to that in the fellow eye was 86% +/- 19% with checks of 50' and 61% +/- 35% with checks of 12'). The latencies showed no statistically significant difference between the affected and the fellow eyes, although a marked interocular delay was found in a few patients. The degree of amplitude reduction and interocular delay had no relation to the size of the macular hole or visual acuity. The effects of experimental scotomata of various sizes on the VEPs, which were evaluated in nine normal subjects, were also variable among the subjects. We conclude that although the macula predominantly participates in the pattern VEP, an estimation of the extent of macular pathology from the VEP changes may be difficult because the VEP changes induced by a macular hole have wide individual variation and have no relation to the size of the hole.

show abstract

“…The visual evoked response (VER) has become a more useful measure of visual function in recent years primarily because of the discovery that stimulation with a contrast reversing checkerboard pattern produces a very consistent response, in comparison to flash stimulation, both within and between individuals (Ciganek, 1969;Halliday and Michael, 1970;Behrman et al, 1972;Halliday et al, 1973). The reversing checkerboard pattern eliminates change in total luminance associated with flash stimulation, and the response to pattern reversal is less influenced by attention (Kopell et al, 1969).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%