Steady-state multifocal visual evoked potential (ssmfVEP) using dartboard stimulation as a possible tool for objective visual field assessment

Horn, Folkert K.; Selle, Franziska; Hohberger, Bettina; Kremers, Jan

doi:10.1007/s00417-015-3214-9

Cited by 5 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For all four arrays, the stimulus frequency resulting in the maximal VEP response was between 10 and12 Hz. This is in agreement with previous studies 4,32,33. Furthermore, the amplitudes were similar to those found previously in experiments using conventional multifocal stimuli34 and with the steady-state multifocal VEP 4.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…This is in agreement with previous studies 4,32,33. Furthermore, the amplitudes were similar to those found previously in experiments using conventional multifocal stimuli34 and with the steady-state multifocal VEP 4. However, in contrast to earlier studies where the amplitudes were largest in the lower stimulus fields,20,35,36 we found the largest amplitudes in the upper-right quadrant.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Sutter showed that the responses to multiple simultaneously presented stimuli can be reconstructed by cross-correlation, resulting in a topographical VEP recording system. It has been shown that the m-sequence technique can be used for transient stimulation as well as for steady-state measurements4 using a conventional monitor. In measurements by Horn et al,4 only half of the stimulation fields was flickering at the same time, while the other half was not activated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been shown that the m-sequence technique can be used for transient stimulation as well as for steady-state measurements4 using a conventional monitor. In measurements by Horn et al,4 only half of the stimulation fields was flickering at the same time, while the other half was not activated. In the present LED-array arrangement, all stimuli were presented simultaneously, consequently requiring less examination time as the m-sequence technique.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Responses at other frequencies, caused by noise or artifacts (e.g., eye movements, myographic noise, alpha waves2,3), can be separated from the signal and will not disturb further analysis. In contrast to applying m-sequences for multifocal steady-state stimulation, as was done previously,4 we here used a multifrequency method. It has been shown that fundamental and higher harmonic components in the frequency domain have extremely small bandwidths and can be very stable 5,6.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Steady-State Visually Evoked Potentials Elicited by Multifrequency Pattern-Reversal Stimulation

Hohberger

Kremers

Horn

2019

Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose It has been shown that multifrequency stimulation with multifocal electroretinography can reduce recording time without a loss in signal-to-noise ratio. Here, we studied the applicability of multifrequency stimulations for steady-state visually evoked potential (VEP) recordings. Methods Multifrequency VEPs were recorded monocularly from 10 healthy subjects using pattern-reversal stimuli. The reversal frequency varied between 5 and 30 Hz. Pattern-reversal checkerboard stimuli were generated using four square arrays, each containing 100 light-emitting diodes (LEDs), positioned in four quadrants. Each array had a temporal frequency that differed slightly from the nominal frequency. The long duration of the data acquisition ensured that the slightly different stimulus frequencies in the four LED arrays can be resolved and that the responses to the stimulus in each array can be distinguished (e.g., with a frequency resolution: 0.011 Hz at 12 Hz). The best response from the four recording electrode configuration, defined as the recording with the maximal signal-to-noise ratio, was used for further analysis. Algorithmic latencies were calculated from the ratio of phase data and frequencies in a range of 4 and 20 Hz. Results Quadrant-VEPs with simultaneous pattern-reversal stimulation yielded a significant dependency on temporal frequency and stimulus location. The frequency range leading to the maximal response amplitude was between 10 and 12 Hz. Response phases decreased approximately linearly, with increasing temporal frequency suggesting a mean algorithmic latency between 112 and 126 ms. Conclusions Multifrequency stimulation using LED arrays is an efficient method for recording pattern-reversal VEPs while all stimuli are presented at the same time. Translational Relevance Simultaneously recorded VEPs as performed by the multi-frequency method can be used for objective measurements of visual field defects.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Steady-State Visually Evoked Potentials Elicited by Multifrequency Pattern-Reversal Stimulation

Hohberger

Kremers

Horn

2019

Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Temporal frequency dependence of the polarity inversion between upper and lower visual field in the pattern-onset steady-state visual evoked potential

Kessler

Heinrich

2022

Doc Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose According to the cruciform model, the upper and lower halves of the visual field representation in the primary visual cortex are located mainly on the opposite sides of the calcarine sulcus. Such a shape would have consequences for the surface-recorded visual evoked potential (VEP), as V1 responses to stimulation of the upper and lower hemifield manifest with opposite polarity (i.e., polarity inversion). However, the steady-state VEP results from a complex superposition of response components from different cortical sources, which can obscure the inversion of polarity. The present study assesses the issue for different stimulation frequencies which result in different patterns of superposition in the steady-state response. Methods Sequences of brief pattern-onset stimuli were presented at different stimulation rates ranging from 2 Hz (transient VEP) to 13 Hz (steady-state VEP). The upper and lower hemifields were tested separately and simultaneously. The data were assessed both in the time domain and in the frequency domain. Results Comparing the responses to the stimulation of upper and lower hemifield, polarity inversion was present within a limited time interval following individual stimulus onsets. With increasing frequency, this resulted in an approximate inversion of the full steady-state response and consequently in a phase shift of approximately 180° in the time-domain response. Polarity inversion was more prominent at electrode Pz, also for transient responses. Our data also demonstrated that the sum of the hemifield responses is a good approximation of the full-field response. Conclusion While the basic phenomenon of polarity inversion occurs irrespective of the stimulus frequency, its relative impact on the steady-state response as a whole is the largest for high stimulation rates. We propose that this is because longer-lasting response components from other visual areas are not well represented in the steady-state VEP at higher frequencies.

show abstract

Objective detection of visual field defects with multifrequency VEPs

Crux,

Huchzermeyer,

Kremers

et al. 2023

Doc Ophthalmol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To correlate multifrequency pattern reversal VEPs in quadrants (QmfrVEPs) with perimetric field losses for objective detection of visual field losses. Methods QmfrVEP measurements were performed using four LED-based checkerboard stimulators to stimulate the four quadrants of the visual field. QmfrVEPs were measured monocularly in 5 normal subjects and in 5 glaucoma patients who showed losses in conventional Octopus perimetry. The pattern reversal frequency varied slightly between the stimulators: (11.92, 12.00, 12.08 and 12.16 reversals/sec). The responses to the different stimuli were identified by discrete Fourier analysis. VEPs were recorded using different electrode configurations, and the recording with the highest signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was used for further analysis. Results QmfrVEP responses from the different quadrants can be reliably measured and separated using the 0.08 reversals/sec interstimulus reversal frequency differences. The signal-to-noise ratio in the four quadrants was significantly correlated with the equivalent visual field losses obtained with perimetry (Spearman rank correlation: P < 0.001). In the five glaucoma patients, the SNR was reduced in 15 out of the 16 quadrants with a perimetric defect, in comparison to the results in quadrants of healthy subjects. This confirms the sensitivity of the procedure. Conclusion QmfrVEP responses can be measured reliably. This pilot study suggests that high SNR values exclude visual field defects and that focal defects can be identified in glaucoma patients. Trial registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov. NCT00494923.

show abstract

Steady-state multifocal visual evoked potential (ssmfVEP) using dartboard stimulation as a possible tool for objective visual field assessment

Cited by 5 publications

References 36 publications

Steady-State Visually Evoked Potentials Elicited by Multifrequency Pattern-Reversal Stimulation

Steady-State Visually Evoked Potentials Elicited by Multifrequency Pattern-Reversal Stimulation

Temporal frequency dependence of the polarity inversion between upper and lower visual field in the pattern-onset steady-state visual evoked potential

Objective detection of visual field defects with multifrequency VEPs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About