Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Correlation between full-field and multifocal VEPs in optic neuritis

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim To compare performance of multi-focal and full-field Visual Evoked Potentials (VEP) in patients with optic neuritis (ON). Method 26 patients with unilateral ON were enrolled. Multi-focal VEP (MF VEP) was recorded using AccuMap™ system. Four bipolar channels were analysed. Full-field VEP (FF VEP) was performed according to ISCEV standard using ESPION™ with frontal-occipital electrode placement. Pattern-reversal protocol was implemented with check size of 60′ and field of view of 30°. Result For both tests amplitude and latency of affected eye were statistically different from non-affected eye. The asymmetry of amplitude and latency between two eyes was also very similar for both tests. Averaged Relative Asymmetry Coefficient of amplitude (RAC) for the FF VEP was 0.10 ± 0.15 and for the MF VEP was 0.12 ± 0.12 (P = 0.21, paired t-test). Averaged latency difference between affected and non-affected eyes was 13.0 ± 12 ms for FF and 14.1 ± 11.1 ms for MF VEPs (P = 0.14, paired t-test). Coefficient of correlation (r) of p100 component of the FF VEP and averaged MF VEP was 0.60 (P < 0.0001) for amplitude and 0.79 (P < 0.0001) for latency. Correlation improved when amplitude and latency asymmetry between two eyes was analysed (r = 0.81 and r = 0.92 respectively). Overall 73% of affected eyes were identified as abnormal by amplitude and/or latency of the FF VEP and 89% was considered abnormal when MF VEP was used. Analysis of individual cases revealed superior performance of MF VEP in detecting small or peripheral defects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ghezzi A, Martinelli V, Torri V et al (1999) Long-term follow-up of isolated optic neuritis: the risk of developing multiple sclerosis, its outcome, and the prognostic role of paraclinical tests. J Neurol 246:770–775

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rodriguez M, Siva A, Cross SA et al (1995) Optic neuritis: a population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Neurology 45:244–250

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Youl BD, Turano G, Miller DH et al (1991) The pathophysiology of acute optic neuritis. An association of gadolinium leakage with clinical and electrophysiological deficits. Brain 114:2437–2450

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Halliday AM, McDonald WI, Mushin J (1972) Delayed visual evoked responsein optic neuritis. Lancet i:982–985

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ebers GC (1985) Optic neuritis and multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol 42:702–704

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Jones SJ, Brusa A (2003) Neurophysiological evidence for long-term repair of MS lesions: implications for axon protection. J Neurol Sci 206:193–198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Daniel P, Whittridge D (1961) The representation of the visual field on the cerebral cortex in monkeys. J Physiol 159:203–221

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Riggs LA, Wooten BR (1972) Electrical measures and psychophysical data on human vision. In: Jamison D, Hurvich LM (ed) Handbook of sensory physiology, vol 7/4. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 690–731

    Google Scholar 

  9. MacKay DM, Jeffreys DA (1973) Visual evoked potentials and visual perception in man. In: Jung R (ed) Handbook of sensory physiology, vol 11. Springer, Berlin, pp 647–656

    Google Scholar 

  10. Spekreijse H, van der Tweel LH, Zuidma T (1973) Contrast evoked response in man. Vision Res 35:153–163

    Google Scholar 

  11. ONTT Group (1991) The clinical profile of optic neuritis: experience of the optic neuritis treatment trial. Arch Ophthalmol 109:1673–1678

    Google Scholar 

  12. Halliday AM, Darbett G, Blumhardt LD, Kriss A (1979) The macular and submacular subcomponents of the attern evoked response. In: Lehman D, Callaway E (eds) Human evoked potentials. Plenum Publishing, New York, pp 135–151

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hammond SR, MacCallum S, Yiannikas C et al (1987) Variability on serial testing of pattern reversal visual evoked potential latencies from full-field, half-field and foveal stimulation in control subjects. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 66:401–408

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Baseler HA, Sutter EE, Klein SA, Carney T (1994) The topography of visual evoked response properties across the visual field. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 90:65–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Klistorner AI, Graham SL, Grigg JR, Billson FA (1998) Multifocal topographic visual evoked potential: improving objective detection of local visual field defects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 39:937–950

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hood DC, Ohri N, Bo Yang E et al (2005) Determining abnormal latencies of multifocal visual evoked potentials: a monocular analysis. Doc Ophthalmol 109:189–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Graham SL, Klistorner A, Goldberg I (2005) Clinical application of objective perimetry using multifocal VEP in Glaucoma practice. Arch Ophthalmol 123:729–739

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hood DC, Thienprasiddhi P, Greenstein VC et al (2004) Detecting early to mild glaucomatous damage: a comparison of the multifocal VEP and automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:492–498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fraser C, Klistorner A, Graham SL et al (2006) Multifocal visual evoked potential analysis of inflammatory or demyelinating optic neuritis. Ophthalmol 107:2283–2299

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fraser C, Klistorner A, Graham SL et al (2006) Multifocal visual evoked potential latency analysis: predicting progression to multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol 43:847–850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Barber C (1998) The multifocal ERG and VEP. In: Stalberg E, de Weerd A, Zidar J (eds) Proc North Eur Congr Clin Neurophysiol, Bologna, pp 209–216

  22. Barber C, Wen Y (2000) The multi-focal visual evoked potential can be used to dissect the standard VEP[ARVO abstract]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:S334

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fortune B, Hood DC (2003) Conventional pattern-reversal VEPs are not equivalent to summed multifocal VEPs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:1367–1375

    Google Scholar 

  24. Graham SL, Klistorner AI, Grigg JR, Billson FA (2000) Objective VEP perimetry in glaucoma: asymmetry analysis to identify early deficits. J Glaucoma 9:10–19

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Klistorner A, Graham SL (2001) Electroencephalogram-based scaling of multifocal visual evoked potentials: effect on intersubject amplitude variability. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42:2145–2152

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Goldberg I, Graham SL, Klistorner A (2002) Multifocal objective perimetry in the detection of glaucomatous field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 133:29–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Graham SL, Klistorner A (1999) The diagnostic significance of the multifocal pattern visual evoked potential in glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 10:140–146

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Harding GF, Odom JV, Spileers W, Spekreije H (1996) Standard for visual evoked potentials 1995. Vision Res 36:3567–3572

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Steinmetz H, Gunter F, Bernd-Ulrich M (1989) Craniocerebral topography within the international 10–20 system. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 72:499–506

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Stensaas SS, Eddington DK, Dobelle WH (1974) The topography and variability of the primary visual cortex in man. J Neurosurg 40:747–755

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Hood DC, Zhang X (2000) Multifocal ERG and VEP responses and visual fields: comparing disease-related changes. Doc Ophthalmol 100:115–137

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Basar E, Rahn E, Demiralp T, Schurmann M (1998) Spontaneous EEG theta activity controls frontal visual evoked potential amplitudes. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 108:101–109

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Brandt ME, Jansen BH (1991) The relationship between prestimulus-alpha amplitude and visual evoked potential amplitude. Int J Neurosci 61:261–268

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Rahn E, Basar E (1993) Enhancement of visual evoked potentials by stimulation during low prestimulus EEG stages. Int J Neurosci 72:123–136

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Klistorner A, Graham SL (2006) Intertest variability of mfVEP amplitude: reducing its effect on the interpretation of sequential tests. Doc Ophthalmol 111:159–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Tusa RM, Palmer LA, Rosenquist AC (1978) The retinotopic organization of area 17 (striate cortex) in th ecat. J Comp Neurol 177:213–236

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Harter MR (1970) Evoked cortical responses to checkerboard patterns: effect of check-size as a function of retinal eccentricity. Vision Res 10:1365–1376

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Meredith JT, Celesia GG (1982) Pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials and retinal eccentricity. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 53:243–253

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Yiannikas C, Walsh JC (1983) The variation of the pattern shift visual evoked response with the size of the stimulus field. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 55:427–435

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Lesevre N, Joseph JP (1979) Modification of the pattern evoked potential in relation to the stimulated part of the visual field. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 47:183–203

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Balachandran C, Klistorner A, Graham SL (2003) Effect of stimulus check size on multifocal visual evoked potentials. Doc Ophthalmol 106:183–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ristanovic D, Hajdukovic R (1981) Effects of spatially structured stimulus fields on pattern reversal visual evoked potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 51:599–610

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

Dr A. Klistorner is Sydney Medical Foundation Senior Research Fellow. Study was supported by ORIA grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Save Sight Institute, Sydney Eye Hospital, University of Sydney, Macquarie Street, PO BOX 4337, Sydney, NSW, 2001, Australia

    Alexander Klistorner, Clare Fraser, Raymond Garrick, Stuart Graham & Hemamalini Arvind

Authors
  1. Alexander Klistorner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Clare Fraser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raymond Garrick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stuart Graham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hemamalini Arvind
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Klistorner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Klistorner, A., Fraser, C., Garrick, R. et al. Correlation between full-field and multifocal VEPs in optic neuritis. Doc Ophthalmol 116, 19–27 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-007-9072-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-007-9072-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation