The Clinical Utility of Visual-Evoked Potential Acuity Testing

Steele, Mark A.; Seiple, William; Carr, Ronald E.; Klug, Ronald

doi:10.1016/0002-9394(89)90436-4

Cited by 39 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The different results among studies might reflect the selective conflicting of the testing coefficient and age-differences between the test groups. Moreover, some reports found a curvilinear relationship between the P1 amplitude and check size/visual angle [20,35] . The peak amplitude of P1 wave was elicited at 30´ in the visual acuity groups studied [35] .…”

Section: Features Of the Prvep Responding To Visual Acuity P1mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The characteristics of participants such as age, gender, and ocular dominance have also been considered [19] . Steele standardized VEPs using normal emmetropic subjects, and then applied the results to uncorrected myopic subjects to objectively determine visual acuity for the assessment of clinical outcomes, and the primary conclusion was that the VEP can distinguish between emmetropic and corrected myopic eyes [20] . Moreover, many studies have investigated check size/visual angle using the pattern-reversal VEP (PRVEP), and its relationship with visual acuity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Visual acuity evaluated by pattern-reversal visual-evoked potential is affected by check size/visual angle

Chen

Liu

et al. 2012

Neurosci. Bull.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To systemically explore the range of visual angles that affect visual acuity, and to establish the relationship between the P1 component (peak latency ~100 ms) of the pattern-reversal visual-evoked potential (PRVEP) and the visual acuity at particular visual angles. Methods Two hundred and ten volunteers were divided into seven groups, according to visual acuity as assessed by the standard logarithmic visual acuity chart (SLD-ii). For each group, the PRVEP components were elicited in response to visual angle presentations at 8°, 4°, 2°, 1°/60´, 30´, 15´, and 7.5´, in the whiteblack chess-board reversal mode with a contrast level of 100% at a frequency of 2 Hz. Visual stimuli were presented monocularly, and 200 presentations were averaged for each block of trials. The early and stable component P1 was recorded at the mid-line of the occipital region (oz) and analyzed with SPSS 13.00. Results (1) oz had the maximum P1 amplitude; there was no significant difference between genders or for interocular comparison in normal controls and subjects with optic myopia. (2) The P1 latency decreased slowly below 30´, then increased rapidly. The P1 amplitude initially increased with check size, and was maximal at ~1° and ~30´. (3) The P1 latency in the group with visual acuity ≤0.2 was significantly different at 8°, 15´ and 7.5´, while the amplitude differed at all visual angles, compared with the group with normal vision. Differences in P1 for the groups with 0.5 and 0.6 acuity were only present at visual angles <1°. (4) Regression analysis showed that the P1 latency and amplitude were associated with visual acuity over the full range of visual angles. There was a moderate correlation at visual angles <30´. Regression equations were calculated for the P1 components and visual acuity, based on visual angle. Conclusion (1) Visual angle should be taken into consideration when exploring the function of the visual pathway, especially visual acuity. A visual angle ~60´ might be appropriate when using PRVEP components to evaluate poor vision and to identify malingerers. (2) increased P1 amplitude and decreased P1 latency were associated with increasing visual acuity, and the P1 components displayed a linear correlation with visual acuity, especially in the range of optimal visual angles. Visual acuity can be deduced from P1 based on visual angle.

show abstract

Section: Features Of the Prvep Responding To Visual Acuity P1mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual acuity evaluated by pattern-reversal visual-evoked potential is affected by check size/visual angle

Chen

Liu

et al. 2012

Neurosci. Bull.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As in previous studies, reliable PR-VEP data could be recorded in all patients with no observable physical damage to the anterior visual system who were included in the present study (9,20,21) . An earlier study of 4 children with functional visual losses and normal PR-VEP results reported psychological and social motivations as the major reasons for malingering (22) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials as a diagnostic tool for ocular malingering

Soares

Sacai

Berezovsky

et al. 2016

Arquivos Brasileiros De Oftalmologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To investigate the contributions of transient pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials in the diagnosis of ocular malingering at a Brazilian university hospital. Methods: Adult patients with suspected malingering in one or both eyes were referred for visual evoked potential testing. Data from patients' medical records were reviewed and analyzed retrospectively. Data analysis included the distance optotype visual acuity based on a ETDRS retro-illuminated chart and the transient pattern-reversal visual evoked potential parameters of latency (milliseconds) and amplitude (microvolts) for the P100 component, using checkerboards with visual subtenses of 15' and 60' . Motivations for malingering were noted. Results: The 20 subjects included 11 (55%) women. Patient ages ranged from 21 to 61 years (mean= 45.05 ± 11.76 years; median= 49 years). In 8 patients (6 women), both eyes exhibited reduced visual acuity with normal pattern-reversal visually evoked potential parameters (pure malingerers). The remaining 12 patients (7 men) exhibited reduced vision in only 1 eye, with simulated reduced vision in the contralateral eye (exaggerators). Financial motivation was noted in 18 patients (9 men). Conclusion: Normal pattern-reversal visually evoked potential parameters with suspected ocular malingering were observed in a 20 patient cohort. This electrophysiological technique appeared to be useful as a measure of visual pathway integrity in this specific population.

show abstract

“…Steele et al [24], using similar analytical methods, found a relatively good acuity corre lation in patients with uncorrected vision of 20/20-20/200 but found a lower correlation in patients with poorer acuities. In our study, although the ratio of acuity agreement did not show a marked change with a decrease in SA, the PVER acuity showed a tendency to be bet ter than the SA acuities in eyes with poor SAs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Snellen Visual Acuity versus Pattern Reversal Visual-Evoked Response Acuity in Clinical Applications

Ohn

Katsumi²,

Matsui³

et al. 1994

Ophthalmic Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We compared the best-corrected Snellen acuity (SA) and the pattern reversal visual-evoked response (PVER) acuity in normal subjects and patients. Forty-two eyes of 42 normal subjects were controls; 457 eyes of 329 patients comprised the patient group. A steady-state stimulus with five check sizes ranging from 160 to 10 min in 1.0-octave steps was used. The PVER acuity was derived from the best-fit linear function relating the amplitude to the log-adjusted check size. Three intercepts of 0, 1 and 2 μV were used in both groups, and the PVER acuities were called P°, P¹ and P². The SAs in normal subjects ranged from 20/15 to 20/20 (mean, 20/18.3) and in patients from 20/15 to 20/1,600 (mean, 20/56.9). In normals, the P° showed the best agreement with the SA (mean acuity difference, +0.34 octave). The SA and P° agreed within ± 2.0 octaves in 33/42 (78.6%) eyes. In patients, the P° also showed the best agreement with the SA; 306/457 (67.0%) eyes showed an acuity difference within ± 2.0 octaves. Unlike normals, 83/ 457 (18.2%) eyes showed an acuity difference > -3.0 octaves. These eyes mostly had optic nerve disease with a flattened PVER amplitude-check size function curve. The P° seems to correlate better with SA than P¹ and P², but this analytical method may be less effective in the presence of certain pathologic conditions.

show abstract

The Clinical Utility of Visual-Evoked Potential Acuity Testing

Cited by 39 publications

References 15 publications

Visual acuity evaluated by pattern-reversal visual-evoked potential is affected by check size/visual angle

Visual acuity evaluated by pattern-reversal visual-evoked potential is affected by check size/visual angle

Pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials as a diagnostic tool for ocular malingering

Snellen Visual Acuity versus Pattern Reversal Visual-Evoked Response Acuity in Clinical Applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About