Skip to main content
Log in

Effect of stimulus check size on multifocal visual evoked potentials

  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study we examined the effects of varying stimulus check size on multifocal visual evoked potential (VEP). We also evaluated the currently used cortical scaling of stimulus segments. The ObjectiVisionTM multifocal objective perimeter stimulates the eye with random check patterns at 56 cortically scaled segments within the visual field extending to a radius of 26°. All cortically scaled segments have equal number of checks, which gradually increase in size from the center to the periphery, proportional to the size of the segment. Stimuli with 9, 16, 25, 36 and 49 checks/segment were tested on 10 eyes belonging to 10 normal subjects. The check size varied inversely with number of checks per segment. VEP was recorded using bipolar occipital cross electrodes (7min/eye), the amplitude and latency of responses obtained were compared with the check size at different eccentricities. Our findings suggest that the existing setting with 16 checks/segment subtending 26′ to 140′ from center to periphery, is the most effective amongst all the check sizes. Decreasing the check size prolongs the latency in the central field only. Cortical scaling of segments generates responses of the same order of magnitude throughout the field, but could be improved slightly to enhance the signal from the outer two rings.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ristanovic D Hajdukovic R. Effects of spatially structured stimulus fields on pattern reversal visual evoked potentials. Electroencephal Clin Neurophysiol 1981; 51: 599–610.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kurita-Tashima S et al. Effect of check size on the pattern reversal visual evoked potential. Electroencephal Clin Neurophysiol 1991; 80: 161–166.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Raniel Y et al. Miniature fiber-optic pattern-reversal stimulator for determination of the visual evoked potential threshold; comparison with snellen acuity. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1989; 227(3): 212–215.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Jenkins T, Douthwaite W. An objective VER assessment of visual acuity compared with subjective measures. Am J Optometry & Physiolog Opt 1988; 65(12): 957–961.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ohn Y et al. Snellen visual acuity versus pattern reversal visual-evoked response acuity in clinical applications. Ophthalmic Res 1994; 26(4): 240–252.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Katsumi O et al. Effect of hemifield stimulation on simultaneous steady-state pattern reversal electroretinogram and visual evoked response. Ophthalmic Res 1993; 25: 119–127.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Katsumi O, Hirose T, Tsukada T. Effect of number of elements and size of stimulus field on recordability of pattern reversal visual evoked response. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1988; 29: 922–927.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Nakamura M et al. Effects of check size on pattern reversal visual evoked magnetic field and potential. Brain Res 2000; 872 (1–2): 77–86.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chiappa KH, Gill EM, Lentz KE. Effect of check size on P100 latency. Electroencephal Clin Neurophysiol 1985; 61: 29–30.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  11. Meredith JT, Celesia GG. Pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials and retinal eccentricity. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1982; 53(3): 243–53.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ravamo L, Virsu V. An estimation and application of the human cortical magnification factor. Exp Brain Res 1979; 37: 495–510.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Baseler HA et al. The topography of visual evoked response properties across the visual field. Electroencephal Clin Neurophysiol 1994; 90: 65–81.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Baseler HA, Sutter EE. M and P components of the VEP and their visual field contribution. Vision Res, 1997; 37(6): 675–790.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Horton JC, Hoyt F. The representation of the visual field in the human striate cortex. Arch Ophthalmol 1991; 109: 816–824.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Klistorner A, Graham SL. Objective perimetry in glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2000; 107: 2283–2299.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Goldberg I, Graham SL, Klistorner A. Multifocal objective perimetry in the detection of glaucomatous field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 2002; 133(1): 29–39.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Klistorner AI et al. Multifocal topographic visual evoked potential: improving objective detection of local visualfield defects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1998; 39(6): 937–950.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sarwate and Pursley. Crosscorrelation properties of pseudorandom and related sequences. Proc IEEE 1980; 68(5): 593–619.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Klistorner A, Graham SL. Electroen ephalogram-based scaling of multifocal visual evoked potentials: Effect on intersubject amplitude variability. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001; 42(9): 2145–2152.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hood DC et al. An interocular comparison of the multifocal VEP: a possible technique for detecting local damage to the optic nerve. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 41(6): 1580–1587.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Balachandran, C., Klistorner, A.I. & Graham, S.L. Effect of stimulus check size on multifocal visual evoked potentials. Doc Ophthalmol 106, 183–188 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022571530152

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022571530152

Navigation