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

Ridder, William H.; Waite, Bradley S.; Melton, Timothy F.

doi:10.1007/s10633-014-9457-7

Cited by 10 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It then linearly increased from a ratio of 1.1 (i.e., eleven items) to a ratio of 1.5 (i.e., fifteen items) with an incremental step of 0.1. This increasing fluctuation within a single stimulation sequence is based on the sweep visual evoked potential technique 32 , 56 – 59 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A robust electrophysiological marker of spontaneous numerical discrimination

Georges

Guillaumé

Schiltz

2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans have a Number Sense that enables them to represent and manipulate numerical quantities. Behavioral data suggest that the acuity of numerical discrimination is predictively associated with math ability—especially in children—but some authors argued that its assessment is problematic. In the present study, we used frequency-tagged electroencephalography to objectively measure spontaneous numerical discrimination during passive viewing of dot or picture arrays in healthy adults. During 1-min sequences, we introduced periodic numerosity changes and we progressively increased the magnitude of such changes every ten seconds. We found significant brain synchronization to the periodic numerosity changes from the 1.2 ratio over medial occipital regions, and amplitude strength increased with the numerical ratio. Brain responses were reliable across both stimulus formats. Interestingly, electrophysiological responses also mirrored performances on a number comparison task and seemed to be linked to math fluency. In sum, we present a neural marker of numerical acuity that is passively evaluated in short sequences, independent of stimulus format and that reflects behavioural performances on explicit number comparison tasks.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A robust electrophysiological marker of spontaneous numerical discrimination

Georges

Guillaumé

Schiltz

2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Where SFs viewed or available extend to finer values than the VEP SF limit, i.e. bracket the electrophysiological limit and presumably eliminate the possibility of a ceiling effect, average VEP SF limits are slightly higher [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. Several studies give examples of individuals with VEP SF limits of C 40 cpd [12,18,19,[34][35][36][37] suggesting this as a suitable upper limit for subjects where a normal VEP SF limit is possible.…”

Section: Vep Sf Limits In Normally Sighted Adultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

VEP estimation of visual acuity: a systematic review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Visual evoked potentials (VEPs) can be used to measure visual resolution via a spatial frequency (SF) limit as an objective estimate of visual acuity. The aim of this systematic review is to collate descriptions of the VEP SF limit in humans, healthy and disordered, and to assess how accurately and precisely VEP SF limits reflect visual acuity. Methods The protocol methodology followed the PRISMA statement. Multiple databases were searched using ''VEP'' and ''acuity'' and associated terms, plus hand search: titles, abstracts or full text were reviewed for eligibility. Data extracted included VEP SF limits, stimulus protocols, VEP recording and analysis techniques and correspondence with behavioural acuity for normally sighted healthy adults, typically developing infants and children, healthy adults with artificially degraded vision and patients with ophthalmic or neurological conditions. Results A total of 155 studies are included. Commonly used stimulus, recording and analysis techniques are summarised. Average healthy adult VEP SF limits vary from 15 to 40 cpd, depend on stimulus, recording and analysis techniques and are often, but not always, poorer than behavioural acuity measured either psychophysically with an identical stimulus or with a clinical acuity test. The difference between VEP SF limit and behavioural acuity is variable and strongly dependent on the VEP stimulus and choice of acuity test. VEP SF limits mature rapidly, from 1.5 to 9 cpd by the end of the first month of life to 12-20 cpd

show abstract

“…To obtain better VEP results, preferably, most of the sweep spatial frequencies should be recognizable with a significant SNR to extrapolate the amplitude against spatial frequency. The sweep range of spatial frequency is about 3 to 30 cpd, corresponding to psychophysical optotypes from 1.0 to 0.0 logMAR in normal humans [ 7 , 36 , 77 , 83 , 85 , 87 , 97 , 98 ]. Besides, the sweep range was biased toward lower spatial frequencies in studies on infants and depended on their age, since their visual function develops over time [ 13 , 19 , 20 , 52 , 65 , 66 , 81 , 88 , 99 , 100 , 101 ].…”

Section: Effects Of Visual Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bach and Farmer [ 26 ] evaluated the implementation and outcome quality of the VEP acuity method on commercial equipment (Diagnosys Espion Profile and E3 electrophysiology systems) and found that VEP acuity agreed with subjective acuity to within ± 0.31 logMAR, indicating that this technique can be accessible to more users. In addition, Ridder et al [ 97 ] compared the two commonly used systems, Enfant and PowerDiva, demonstrating that the acuity estimates with these systems did not have significant differences for normal subjects.…”

Section: Effects Of Signal Acquisition and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Human Visual Acuity Using Visual Evoked Potential: A Review

Zheng

Liang

et al. 2020

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual evoked potential (VEP) has been used as an alternative method to assess visual acuity objectively, especially in non-verbal infants and adults with low intellectual abilities or malingering. By sweeping the spatial frequency of visual stimuli and recording the corresponding VEP, VEP acuity can be defined by analyzing electroencephalography (EEG) signals. This paper presents a review on the VEP-based visual acuity assessment technique, including a brief overview of the technique, the effects of the parameters of visual stimuli, and signal acquisition and analysis of the VEP acuity test, and a summary of the current clinical applications of the technique. Finally, we discuss the current problems in this research domain and potential future work, which may enable this technique to be used more widely and quickly, deepening the VEP and even electrophysiology research on the detection and diagnosis of visual function.

show abstract

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

Abstract: Acuity estimates with the Enfant and PowerDiva are not significantly different for patients with normal acuity. Thus, direct comparisons between the two instruments can be made for patients with normal acuity.

Cited by 10 publications

References 27 publications

A robust electrophysiological marker of spontaneous numerical discrimination

A robust electrophysiological marker of spontaneous numerical discrimination

VEP estimation of visual acuity: a systematic review

Assessment of Human Visual Acuity Using Visual Evoked Potential: A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About