Paired-pulse flash-visual evoked potentials: New methods revive an old test

Cantello, Roberto; Strigaro, Gionata; Prandi, Paolo; Varrasi, Claudia; Mula, Marco; Monaco, Francesco

doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2011.01.008

Cited by 19 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The order of ''EC'' and ''EO'' varied at random in each subject. The eye state (closed or open) was previously shown of great importance as to the F-VEP shape and size (Cantello et al, 2011).…”

Section: F-veps: Stimulation and Recordingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We thus obtained the grand-average of the single F-VEP and kept it as the ''model'' F-VEP. This was split into two epochs: (1) the ''main complex'', that included the main positive peak (P2) and went from 50 to 200 ms after the stimulus, and (2) the ''late response'', which went from 200 to 400 ms after the stimulus (Cantello et al, 2011) (Fig. 1).…”

Section: Measurement and Statisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Measurement was automated via Signal scripts. For the ''main complex'' we calculated for each subject the maximum peak-to-peak amplitude and the latency of the main positive peak (P2) (Cantello et al, 2011) (Fig. 1).…”

Section: Measurement and Statisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second F-VEP of the pair (the ''test'' F-VEP) shows a series of changes that depend on the interstimulus interval (ISI), and mainly express neural inhibition within the visual system. Inhibition is particularly strong when subjects keep their eyes closed, and at the ISIs of 62.5 and 50 ms, or shorter (Cantello et al, 2011;Strigaro et al, 2012). Strigaro et al (2012) reported that it is defective in photosensitive patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The paired-pulse flash-visual evoked potential (paired F-VEP) technique, as revived by means of modern technology, can indeed analyse the overall excitability of the visual system (as detected from the cortical signal) and shed some light on the pathophysiology of migraine (Cantello et al, 2011;Strigaro et al, 2014). The second F-VEP of the pair (the ''test'' F-VEP) shows a series of changes that depend on the interstimulus interval (ISI), and mainly express neural inhibition within the visual system.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Impaired visual inhibition in migraine with aura

Strigaro

Cerino

Falletta

et al. 2015

Clinical Neurophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: F-veps: Stimulation and Recordingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Measurement and Statisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Measurement and Statisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Impaired visual inhibition in migraine with aura

Strigaro

Cerino

Falletta

et al. 2015

Clinical Neurophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reliability of the Flash Visual Evoked Potential P2: Double-Stimulation Study

Wyatt-McElvain

Arruda

Rainey

2018

Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The flash visual evoked potential P2 (FVEP-P2) has been identified as a potentially useful clinical, diagnostic tool for Alzheimer's dementia (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCIa) due to its association with cholinergic functioning in the brain. The FVEP-P2 is the second positive component of the VEP waveform elicited by a single strobe flash. Despite finding a selective delay in the latency of the FVEP-P2 in AD and MCIa groups, adequate levels of sensitivity and specificity have not been achieved due to natural group differences and inter-individual variability. In response, Fix and colleagues introduced a novel, double-stimulation paradigm that contained two strobe flashes (i.e., stimulations). The first stimulation served as a visual challenge while the second stimulation produced the recorded FVEP-P2 component. The results of that investigation indicated that the latency of the FVEP-P2 could be used to reliably discriminate between aMCI and healthy controls when the ISI of the double-stimulation condition was 100 ms or higher. Unfortunately, very little is known regarding the psychometric properties of the FVEP-P2 when produced by a double-stimulation condition. Consequently, we assessed the test-retest reliability of the FVEP-P2 latency produced by a single- and twelve double-stimulation conditions in a sample of young, healthy individuals (N = 20). Results indicated that while the FVEP-P2 latencies produced by the single- and double-stimulation paradigm were reliable, the intra-individual variability continued to be too high for the FVEP-P2 latency to be used clinically. Methods of reducing the intra-individual variability are discussed, including the use of monochromatic light.

show abstract