Visual Evoked Potentials in Interictal Migraine: No Confirmation of Abnormal Habituation

Omland, Petter Moe; Nilsen, Kristian Bernhard; Uglem, Martin; Gravdahl, Gøril Bruvik; Linde, Mattias; Hagen, Knut; Sand, Trond

doi:10.1111/head.12006

Cited by 65 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 46 publications

(327 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…8' and 16' checks) than larger check sizes (e.g. 65') in both controls and migraineurs (Omland et al, 2011;Omland et al, 2013), whereas very small check sizes (e.g. 8') may result in a low signal to noise ratio in some subjects (Sand and Vingen, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…It has therefore been hypothesized that the use of different stimulation parameters could explain the discrepant findings (Sand et al, 2008). This was not confirmed in a study that applied 1.9 rps and 31' and 62' checks (Sand et al, 2009), nor in a study that applied 3.0 rps and 8' and 65' checks (Omland et al, 2013). However, most recent VEP habituation studies applied 14-16' checks (Bednar et al, 2014;Coppola et al, 2007b;Coppola et al, 2011;Coppola et al, 2010b;Coppola et al, 2010a;Coppola et al, 2013b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…VEP amplitude declines during repeated stimulation in controls (Omland et al, 2011;Omland et al, 2013). This decrement is often referred to as habituation (Bednar et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…These claims are disputed for VEP because lack of habituation has not been reproduced in several VEP studies (Oelkers-Ax et al, 2005;Oelkers et al, 1999;Omland et al, 2013;Sand et al, 2008;Vigano et al, 2013). Interestingly, studies that reported lack of habituation in migraine applied 3.1 reversals per second (rps), while most other studies applied slower reversal rates.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interestingly, studies that reported lack of habituation in migraine applied 3.1 reversals per second (rps), while most other studies applied slower reversal rates. In addition, previous studies have also used different check sizes (see Table 5 in Omland et al, 2013). It has therefore been hypothesized that the use of different stimulation parameters could explain the discrepant findings (Sand et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Visual evoked potentials in migraine: Is the “neurophysiological hallmark” concept still valid?

Omland

Uglem

Hagen

et al. 2016

Clinical Neurophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Please cite this article as: Omland, P.M., Uglem, M., Hagen, K., Linde, M., Tronvik, E., Sand, T., Visual evoked potentials in migraine: Is the "neurophysiological hallmark" concept still valid ?, Clinical Neurophysiology (2015), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.clinph.2014.12.035 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 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. • Lack of VEP habituation is not a reliable "neurophysiological hallmark" in interictal migraine• Strict focus on methodology, including blinding during the recording and assessment of VEP, is important to avoid overestimation of effect sizes in future studies.2 Abstract Objective Lack of habituation is considered a neurophysiological hallmark of migraine. However, the results of visual evoked potential (VEP) studies have been discrepant, possibly because of different stimulation parameters and lack of blinding. Hence, there is a need for independent confirmation of lack of VEP habituation in migraine. In this blinded study we applied 16' checks to supplement our previous findings with 8', 31', 62' and 65' checks. MethodsVEPs in 41 interictal migraineurs and 30 controls were compared. VEPs were recorded in six blocks of 100 single responses. Linear N70-P100 amplitude change over blocks (habituation slope) was compared with an independent samples Student's t-test. ResultsAmplitude decline over blocks was observed in both groups. Habituation slope was not significantly different between controls (-0.43 ± 0.54 μV/block) and migraineurs (-0.29 ± 0.35 μV/block) (p = 0.33). ConclusionVEP habituation with 16' checks did not differ in migraineurs and controls. This is in agreement with previous findings with other stimulation parameters. It is therefore unlikely that use of different stimulation parameters could explain the discrepant results of previous studies. No studies that applied blinding during recording of VEP have found lack of habituation in migraineurs. SignificanceLack of VEP habituation cannot be considered a reliable neurophysiological hallmark in migraine.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…VEP amplitude declines during repeated stimulation in controls (Omland et al, 2011;Omland et al, 2013). This decrement is often referred to as habituation (Bednar et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%