Effect of stimulus check size on multifocal visual evoked potentials

Documenta Ophthalmologica

Volumn 106, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 183-188

  Balachandran, Chandra ^a   Klistorner, Alexander I ^a   Graham, Stuart L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Check size; Cortical scaling; Multifocal techniques; Perimetry; Visual evoked potential; Visual field

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; ELECTRODE; EVOKED VISUAL RESPONSE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LATENT PERIOD; LUMINANCE; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PERIMETER; STIMULUS; STIMULUS RESPONSE; VISUAL CORTEX; VISUAL FIELD;

ADULT; AGED; CEREBRAL CORTEX; EVOKED POTENTIALS, VISUAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; RETINA; VISUAL PATHWAYS;

EID: 0037345621     PISSN: 00124486     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1022571530152     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Ristanovic D, Hajdukovic R. Effects of spatially structured stimulus fields on pattern reversal visual evoked potentials. Electroencephal Clin Neurophysiol 1981; 51: 599-610.
2. Kurita-Tashima S et al. Effect of check size on the pattern reversal visual evoked potential. Electroencephal Clin Neurophysiol 1991; 80: 161-166.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
9. Chiappa KH, Gill EM, Lentz KE. Effect of check size on P100 latency. Electroencephal Clin Neurophysiol 1985; 61: 29-30.
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.
11. Meredith JT, Celesia GG. Pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials and retinal eccentricity. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1982; 53(3): 243-53.
12. Ravamo L, Virsu V. An estimation and application of the human cortical magnification factor. Exp Brain Res 1979; 37: 495-510.
13. Baseler HA et al. The topography of visual evoked response properties across the visual field. Electroencephal Clin Neurophysiol 1994; 90: 65-81.
14. Baseler HA, Sutter EE. M and P components of the VEP and their visual field contribution. Vision Res, 1997; 37(6): 675-790.
15. Horton JC, Hoyt F. The representation of the visual field in the human striate cortex. Arch Ophthalmol 1991; 109: 816-824.
16. Klistorner A, Graham SL. Objective perimetry in glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2000; 107: 2283-2299.
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.
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.
19. Sarwate and Pursley. Crosscorrelation properties of pseudorandom and related sequences. Proc IEEE 1980; 68(5): 593-619.
20. Klistorner A, Graham SL. Electron ephalogram-based scaling of multifocal visual evoked potentials: Effect on intersubject amplitude variability. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001; 42(9): 2145-2152.
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.