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

Mizota, Atsushi; Hoshino, Akiko; Fujimoto, Naoya

doi:10.1007/s00417-004-0899-6

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the present study, the highest BS was obtained for the greatest defocus and pupil size for the P100 amplitude component (1.40 [0.23]). This is in line with Mizota et al, 46 who also found a mean BS for the P100 peak time in normal patients of 1.05, and 1.30 for the P100 amplitude, thus showing a greater and partial BS for the VEP amplitudes. Similarly, Heravian‐Shandiz et al 47 found an increase of 27% in the mean binocular amplitude compared with the mean monocular finding, indicating partial positive BS under normal conditions.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Neural binocular summation and the effect of defocus on the pattern electroretinogram and visual evoked potentials for different pupil sizes

Martino

Amorim‐de‐Sousa

Fernandes

et al. 2023

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo evaluate the influence of defocus and pupil size on subjective (visual acuity [VA]) and objective (electrophysiology) descriptors of human vision and their effect on binocular visual performance by means of neural binocular summation (BS).MethodsFifteen healthy young subjects were recruited in this crossover study. Pattern electroretinogram (PERG) and visual evoked potentials (VEP) were measured under two levels of positive (+1.5 and +3.0 D) spherical and astigmatic defocus (axis 90°). Pupil size was controlled to reduce the inter‐individual variability factor.ResultsLow‐ and high‐contrast VA showed poorer visual performance in the monocular versus the binocular condition. Positive BS (for VA) was higher with greater pupil size and higher levels of defocus. In the visual electrophysiology tests (i.e., VEP and PERG), peak time and amplitude were affected by pupil size and defocus. The increase in peak time was larger and the reduction in amplitude was more significant with greater levels of defocus and smaller pupil sizes. For the VEP, positive BS was found in all conditions, being stronger with larger amounts of defocus and pupil size (for the P100 amplitude). Significant negative correlations were observed between the P100 amplitude and VA BSs.ConclusionSmaller pupil size and levels of defocus produced greater changes in cortical activity as evidenced by both the PERG and VEP. Considering these changes and the obtained positive BS, the mechanism could be initiated as early as the retinal processing stage, then being modulated and enhanced along the visual pathway and within the visual cortex.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Neural binocular summation and the effect of defocus on the pattern electroretinogram and visual evoked potentials for different pupil sizes

Martino

Amorim‐de‐Sousa

Fernandes

et al. 2023

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These values are comparable to the binocular summation reported for VEPs to a range of flash and pattern stimuli in adults and children with normal binocular vision [17][18][19][20][21]. Although binocular summation is usually expressed as the ratio of binocular amplitude to mean monocular amplitude, the VEP from a randomly selected eye, as in the present study, is not expected to differ significantly from the mean of both eyes.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

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

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Steady-state VEPs to full-field flicker (FFF) using sinusoidally modulated light were compared with those elicited by square-wave modulated light across a wide range of stimulus frequencies with monocular and binocular FFF stimulation. Binocular and monocular VEPs were elicited in 12 adult volunteers to FFF with two modes of temporal modulation: sinusoidal or square-wave (abrupt onset and offset, 50% duty cycle) at ten temporal frequencies ranging from 2.83 to 58.8 Hz. All stimuli had a mean luminance of 100 cd/m(2) with an 80% modulation depth (20-180 cd/m(2)). Response magnitudes at the stimulus frequency (F1) and at the double and triple harmonics (F2 and F3) were compared. For both sinusoidal and square-wave flicker, the FFF-VEP magnitudes at F1 were maximal for 7.52 Hz flicker. F2 was maximal for 5.29 Hz flicker, and F3 magnitudes are largest for flicker stimulation from 3.75 to 7.52 Hz. Square-wave flicker produced significantly larger F1 and F2 magnitudes for slow flicker rates (up to 5.29 Hz for F1; at 2.83 and 3.75 Hz for F2). The F3 magnitudes were larger overall for square-wave flicker. Binocular FFF-VEP magnitudes are larger than those of monocular FFF-VEPs, and the amount of this binocular enhancement is not dependant on the mode of flicker stimulation (mean binocular: monocular ratio 1.41, 95% CI: 1.2-1.6). Binocular enhancement of F1 for 21.3 Hz flicker was increased to a factor of 2.5 (95% CI: 1.8-3.5). In the healthy adult visual system, FFF-VEP magnitudes can be characterized by the frequency-response functions of F1, F2 and F3. Low-frequency roll-off in the FFF-VEP magnitudes is greater for sinusoidal flicker than for square-wave flicker for rates ≤ 5.29 Hz; magnitudes for higher-frequency flicker are similar for the two types of flicker. Binocular FFF-VEPs are larger overall than those recorded monocularly, and this binocular summation is enhanced at 21.3 Hz in the mid-frequency range.

show abstract

“…Generally, stationary or pattern-reversal stimuli (Jakobsson & Lennerstrand, 1985;Johansson & Jakobsson, 1993, 2000Mizota et al, 2004;Sato et al, 2002;Schmeisser & Dawson, 1982;Spekreijse, van der Tweel, & Regan, 1972;Wijeakumar, Shahani, McCulloch, & Simpson, 2012;Zemon & Ratliff, 1982) have been used, and studies using VECPs elicited by transient flashes The implicit times of the N2 and P2 elicited by stimulation of the dominant eye are shorter than those elicited by stimulation of the nondominant eye but the difference was not significant. Right two columns: Comparisons of VECPs recorded after binocular stimuli between dominant and nondominant eyes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Journal of Vision, 14(11):4, 1-9, http://www.journalofvision.org/content/14/11/4, doi:10.1167/14.11.4. Chao, 1995;Spekreijse, van der Tweel, & Regan, 1972) and patients (Lennerstrand, 1978;Levi & Manny, 1982;Mizota, Hoshino, Adachi-Usami, & Fijimoto, 2004). VECPs have been used to evaluate these signals objectively.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Binocular interaction of visually evoked cortical potentials elicited by dichoptic binocular stimulation

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To analyze the interaction of cortical potentials elicited by dichoptic stimulation of the dominant and fellow eyes at different frequencies, a pair of programmed power supply units were used to drive a light emitting diode (LED) mounted in the right and left eyes of light-proof goggles to elicit the visually evoked cortical responses (VECPs). The right eye was stimulated at 11.5 Hz and the left eye at 11.0 Hz. Then the stimulation was repeated with the frequency of stimulation switched to the other eyes. The stimulus duration was 5 ms. The sampling rate was 1.0 Hz, and the duration of collection was 200 ms. The VECP of each eye was extracted separately. Individual VECPs could be recorded separately after simultaneous dichoptic stimulation of each eye. The amplitudes of the VECPs were not significantly different after stimulating the dominant eye and the fellow eye separately. The implicit times of negative peak (N-2) and the second positive peak (P-2) were shorter after stimulation of the dominant eye than after stimulation of the fellow eye, but the difference was not significant. However, the implicit time of N-2 elicited by stimulating the dominant eye was significantly shorter when the stimulation rate was 11.5 Hz. The VECPs elicited by stimulating the two eyes can be recorded separately by simultaneous dichoptic stimulation. Dichoptic simultaneous stimulation required a shorter time and may be a more sensitive method of analyzing binocular interactions compared to the classic VECPs using monocular stimulation.

show abstract

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

Abstract: Binocular summation of VECP is not present in ON cases with large differences in the peak latency between the two eyes even if they have good stereoacuity. Binocular summation may not be correlated with stereopsis in adults whose binocular function has already matured.

Cited by 7 publications

References 9 publications

Neural binocular summation and the effect of defocus on the pattern electroretinogram and visual evoked potentials for different pupil sizes

Neural binocular summation and the effect of defocus on the pattern electroretinogram and visual evoked potentials for different pupil sizes

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

Binocular interaction of visually evoked cortical potentials elicited by dichoptic binocular stimulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About