Detecting glaucomatous damage with multifocal visual evoked potentials: How can a monocular test work?

Journal of Glaucoma

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 3-15

  Hood, Donald C ^a   Zhang, Xian ^a   Winn, Bryan J ^a  

^a Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

Author keywords

Field; Multifocal; VEP; Visual evoked potential

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CASE REPORT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; EVOKED VISUAL RESPONSE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTEROCULAR TRANSFER; MONOCULAR VISION; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RANDOMIZATION; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; VISUAL FIELD;

ADULT; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES, OPHTHALMOLOGICAL; EVOKED POTENTIALS, VISUAL; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; OPTIC NERVE DISEASES; PROBABILITY; RETINAL GANGLION CELLS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 0037328747     PISSN: 10570829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00061198-200302000-00002     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Sokol S. Visually evoked potentials: theory, techniques and clinical applications. Surv Ophthalmol. 1976;21:18-44.
2. Regan D. Human Brain Electrophysiology: Evoked Potentials and Evoked Magnetic Fields in Science and Medicine. New York: Elsevier Science Publishing Co.; 1989.
3. Baseler HA, Sutter EE, Klein SA, et al. The topography of visual evoked response properties across the visual field. Electroenceph clin Neurophysiol. 1994;90:65-81.
4. Klistorner AI, Graham SL, Grigg JR, et al. Multifocal topographic visual evoked potential: improving objective detection of local visual field defects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1998;39:937-950.
5. Graham SL, Klistorner AI, Grigg JR, et al. Objective VEP perimetry in glaucoma: asymmetry analysis to identify early deficits. J Glaucoma. 2000;9:10-19.
6. Hood DC, Zhang X, Greenstein VC, 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; 41:1580-1587.
7. Hood DC, Zhang X. Multifocal ERG and VEP responses and visual fields: comparing disease-related changes. Doc Ophthalmol. 2000;100:115-137.
8. Hood DC, Odel JG, Zhang X. Tracking the recovery of local optic nerve function after optic neuritis: a multifocal VEP study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:4032-4038.
9. Klistorner AI, Graham SL. Objective perimetry in glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:2283-2299.
10. Betsuin Y, Mashima Y, Ohde H, et al. Clinical application of the multifocal VEPs. Curr Eye Res. 2001;22:54-63.
11. Hasegawa S, Abe H. Mapping of glaucomatous visual field defects by multifocal VEPs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:3341-3348.
12. Goldberg I, Graham SL, Klistorner AI. Multifocal objective perimetry in the detection of glaucomatous field loss. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;133:29-39.
13. Kardon RH, Givre SJ, Wall M, et al. Comparison of threshold and multifocal-VEP perimetry. In: Proceedings of the XVIIth International Perimetric Society Meeting, 6-9 September, 2000. New York: Kugler; 2001:19-28.
14. Greenstein VC, Zhang X, Hood DC, et al. The multifocal visual evoked potential technique and detection of early local damage to the ganglion cell/optic nerve (ARVO abstract). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:S520, Abstract no. 2775.
15. Hood DC, Greenstein VC, Odel JG, et al. Visual field defects and multifocal visual evoked potentials: evidence for a linear relationship. Arch Ophthamol 2002;120:1692-1681.
16. Steinmetz H, Gunter F, Bernd-Ulrich M. Craniocerebral topography within the international 10-20 system. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol. 1989;72:499-506.
17. Zhang X, Hood DC, Greenstein VC, et al. Detecting field defects with multifocal VEPs: two eyes are better than one [abstract]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:S81.
18. Sutter EE. The fast m-transform: a fast computation of crosscorrelations with binary m-sequences. Soc Ind Appl Math. 1991; 20:686-694.
19. Hood DC. Assessing retinal function with the multifocal ERG technique. Prog Ret Eye Res. 2000;19:607-646
20. Sutter E. The interpretation of multifocal binary kernels. Doc Ophthalmol. 2000;100:49-75.
21. Hood DC, Zhang X, Hong JE, et al. Quantifying the benefits of additional channels of multifocal VEP recording. Doc Ophthalmol. 2002;104:303-320.
22. Zhang X, Hood DC, Chen CS, et al. A signal-to-noise analysis of multifocal VEP responses: an objective definition for poor records. Doc Ophthalmol. 2002;104:287-302.
23. Klistorner AI, Graham SL. Electroencephalogram-based scaling of multifocal visual evoked potentials: effect on intersubject amplitude variability. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:2145-2152.
24. Chauhan BC, Henson DB, Hobley AJ. Cluster analysis in visual field quantification. Doc Ophthalmol. 1988;69:25-39.
25. Katz J, Sommer A, Gaasterland DE, et al. Comparison of analytic algorithms for detecting glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;109:1684-1689.
26. Wu LL, Suzuki Y, Kunimatsu S, et al. Frequency doubling technology and confocal scanning ophthalmoscopic optic disc analysis in open-angle glaucoma with hemifield defects. J Glaucoma. 2001; 10:256-260
27. Reyes RD, Tomita G, Kitazawa Y. Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness within the area of apparently normal visual field in normaltension glaucoma with hemifield defect. J Glaucoma. 1998;7:329-335.
28. Kook MS, Sung K, Kim S, et al. Study of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in eyes with high tension glaucoma and hemifield defect. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85:1167-1170.
29. Fortune B, Goh K, Demirel S, et al. Detection of glaucomatous visual field loss using multifocal VEP. In: Wall M, Mills RP, eds. Perimetry Update 2002/3. The Hague: Kugler Publications; 2002.