Determining abnormal latencies of multifocal visual evoked potentials: a monocular analysis

Hood, Donald C.; Ohri, Nitin; Yang, E.B.; Rodarte, C.; Zhang, Xian; Fortune, Brad; Johnson, Chris A.

doi:10.1007/s10633-004-5512-0

Cited by 41 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The amplitude of the monocular mfVEP responses was obtained by calculating root mean square (RMS) of the amplitude for mfVEP response over a time interval of 45 to 150 ms [16,[25][26][27][28][29]. Signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) were calculated dividing the RMS of the signal window by the average of the 60 RMS values of the noise-only window [16,25,26].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multifocal visual evoked potential recordings in compressive optic neuropathy secondary to pituitary adenoma

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To investigate the effect of pituitary adenoma compressing the optic chiasm on multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) responses and to compare these responses with visual field defects seen on static automated perimetry (SAP). Eight eyes of four subjects (median age, 41.50 years; interquartile range, 33-51 years) who were diagnosed with pituitary adenoma on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and seen to have a bitemporal visual field defect on standard automated perimetry (SAP), and twelve age-matched normal subjects (median age, 47.00 years; interquartile range, 34.75-51.75 years) were subjected to multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) testing. The monocular latencies and monocular amplitudes of each sector of cases were compared with the responses of normative database. The topography of the mfVEP response was compared with corresponding field defect as seen in total deviation threshold on SAP to allow a comparison with conventional subjective perimetry. The mfVEP amplitudes were reduced in the areas with visual field defect on SAP. In 6 out of 8 eyes, locations with preserved amplitudes and no visual defects showed prolonged latency. A prolonged median latency of 9.17 ms (interquartile range, 3.44-17.69 ms) in cases was seen when compared to the median latency of 1.67 ms (interquartile range, 0.94-4.17 ms) in age-matched controls with P value of 0.054. Chiasmal compression due to pituitary adenoma causes the reduction of amplitudes and prolongation of latencies of the mfVEP response. The mfVEP can be used to assess objectively the topography of the visual field in compressive optic neuropathy secondary to pituitary adenomas. It can be used in assessing the subjects whose visual field report is unreliable and prolonged median latency can be an early sign of the disease.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multifocal visual evoked potential recordings in compressive optic neuropathy secondary to pituitary adenoma

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The two runs for each channel were averaged, and further analyzed using a program written in commercial software (MatLab; The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA). The program and methods of determining monocular and interocular latency have been previously described in detail [8,9,19,21].…”

Section: Mfvepmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, the cVEP sums responses from a wide region of the field. Thus, local delays may be lost in the process [8,9]. Further, since the lower field can contribute more to the cVEP than the upper field [6,[10][11][12][13], the cVEP is less likely to detect upper field defects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of multifocal and conventional visual evoked potential techniques in patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis

et al. 2008

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-To compare conventional visual evoked potential (cVEP) and multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) methods in patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis (ON/MS).Methods-mfVEPs and cVEPs were obtained from eyes of the 19 patients with multiple sclerosis confirmed on MRI scans, and from eyes of 40 normal controls. For the mfVEP, the display was a pattern-reversal dartboard array, 48° in diameter, which contained 60 sectors. Monocular cVEPs were obtained using a checkerboard stimulus with check sizes of 15′ and 60′. For the cVEP, the latency of P100 for both check sizes were measured, while for the mfVEP, the mean latency, percent of locations with abnormal latency, and clusters of contiguous abnormal locations were obtained.Results-For a specificity of 95%, the mfVEP(interocular cluster criterion) showed the highest sensitivity (89.5%) of the 5 monocular or interocular tests. Similarly, when a combined monocular/ © Springer-Verlag 2008Correspondence to: Donald C. Hood, dch3@columbia.edu. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript interocular criterion was employed, the mfVEP(cluster criterion) had the highest sensitivity (94.7%)/ specificity (90%), missing only one patient. The combined monocular/interocular cVEP(60′) test had a sensitivity (84.2%)/specificity (90%), missing 3 patients, 2 more than did the monocular/interocular mfVEP(cluster) test. NIH Public AccessConclusion-As the cVEP is more readily available and currently a shorter test, it should be used to screen patients for ON/MS with mfVEP testing added when the cVEP test is negative and the damage is local.

show abstract

“…Monocular latencies were also measured using the method described in Hood et al 19 Briefly to obtain a measure of the relative monocular latency of a response, a cross-correlation was calculated between the patient's response and a template. A template was created for each location, eye, and channel, and derived from averaging the responses of the group of 100 normal subjects described above.…”

Section: Multifocal Vepmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…18,19 Records with small signal to noise ratios (< 0.23 log unit) or with cross-correlation values of less than zero were excluded as previously described. 19 The relative mfVEP latency values representing the shift in time (ms) that maximized the crosscorrelation with the template, with amplitude scaling of the template, were compared to those obtained from each eye of a group of 23 age-similar normal control subjects. The 23 normal controls had visual acuity ≥20/20 in each eye, binocular single vision, no evidence of any ocular disease and ranged in age from 24-72 years, the mean age was 48.3±11.4 years.…”

Section: Multifocal Vepmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multifocal visual evoked potential and automated perimetry abnormalities in strabismic amblyopes

Greenstein

Eggers

Hood

2008

Journal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare visual field abnormalities obtained with standard automated perimetry (SAP) to those obtained with the multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) technique in strabismic amblyopes.Methods: Humphrey 24-2 visual fields (HVF) and mfVEPs were obtained from each eye of 12 strabismic amblyopes. For the mfVEP, amplitudes and latencies were analyzed and probability plots derived. Multifocal VEP and HVF hemifields were abnormal if they had clusters of 2 or more contiguous points at p<0.01, or 3 or more contiguous points at p<0.05 with at least one at p<0.01. An eye was abnormal if it had an abnormal hemifield.Results: On SAP, amblyopic eyes had significantly higher foveal thresholds (p=0.003) and lower mean deviation values (p=0.005) than fellow eyes. For the mfVEP, 11 amblyopic and 6 fellow eyes were abnormal. Of the 11 amblyopic eyes, 6 were abnormal on SAP. The deficits extended from the center to mid-periphery. Monocular mfVEP latencies were significantly decreased for amblyopic eyes compared to control eyes (p<0.0002). Conclusions:Both techniques revealed deficits in visual function across the visual field in strabismic amblyopes, but the mfVEP revealed deficits in fellow eyes and in more amblyopic eyes. In addition, mfVEP response latencies for amblyopic eyes were shorter than normal.Amblyopia is a developmental disorder characterized by decreased vision that cannot be corrected by refractive means and is not accompanied by any overt pathology of the visual system. It is one of the most common causes of decreased vision in childhood. Amblyopia is associated with the presence of strabismus, anisometropia or form deprivation early in life and is characterized by deficits in central visual function such as decreased visual acuity and contrast sensitivity, as well as by visual field deficits. However, there is controversy regarding the extent and depth of these visual field deficits. For example, Phillip and Mayer described visual field deficits in strabismic and ansiometropic amblyopes ranging from central to paracentral scotoma, whereas Sireteanu and Fronius reported finding central defects in For correspondence concerning the manuscript: Vivienne C. Greenstein Ph.D. Department of Ophthalmology Columbia University 630 West 165 th Street New York, NY 10032. Email: vcg17@columbia.edu.. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.Study Site: Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University, New York, NY.Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, 2005 The authors have no proprietary interests in th...

show abstract

Determining abnormal latencies of multifocal visual evoked potentials: a monocular analysis

Cited by 41 publications

References 18 publications

Multifocal visual evoked potential recordings in compressive optic neuropathy secondary to pituitary adenoma

Multifocal visual evoked potential recordings in compressive optic neuropathy secondary to pituitary adenoma

A comparison of multifocal and conventional visual evoked potential techniques in patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis

Multifocal visual evoked potential and automated perimetry abnormalities in strabismic amblyopes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About