A comparison between multifocal and conventional VEP latency changes secondary to glaucomatous damage

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 47, Issue 12, 2006, Pages 5331-5336

  Grippo, Tomas M ^a   Hood, Donald C ^b   Kanadani, Fabio N ^a   Ezon, Isaac ^a   Greenstein, Vivienne C ^b,c   Liebmann, Jeffrey M ^c,d   Ritch, Robert ^a,e  

^a NEW YORK EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY   (United States)

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

^c NEW YORK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d EAR AND THROAT HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e NEW YORK MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CELL DAMAGE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVOKED VISUAL RESPONSE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; LATENT PERIOD; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NERVE CELL; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETINA CELL; STIMULUS; VISUAL FIELD; ADOLESCENT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; RETINA GANGLION CELL;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; EVOKED POTENTIALS, VISUAL; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERIMETRY; REACTION TIME; RETINAL GANGLION CELLS;

EID: 34248195970     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.06-0527     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Atkin A, Bodis-Wollner I, Podos SM, Wolkstein M, Mylin L, Nitzberg S. Flicker threshold and pattern VEP latency in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1983;24:1524-1528.
2. Towle VL, Moskowitz A, Sokol S, Schwartz B. The visual evoked potential in glaucoma and ocular hypertension: effects of check size, field size, and stimulation rate. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1983;24:175-183.
3. Parisi V. Neural conduction in the visual pathways in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1997;235:136-142.
4. Parisi V, Miglior S, Manni G, Centofanti M, Bucci MG. Clinical ability of pattern electroretinograms and visual evoked potentials in detecting visual dysfunction in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:216-228.
5. Porciatti V, Schiavi C, Benedetti P, Baldi A, Campos EC. Cytidine5′-diphosphocholine improves visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and visually-evoked potentials of amblyopic subjects. Curr Eye Res. 1998;17:141-148.
6. Parisi V, Manni G, Colacino G, Bucci MG. Cytidine-5′-diphospho- choline (citicoline) improves retinal and cortical responses in patients with glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:1126-1134.
7. Rejdak R, Toczolowski J, Kurkowski J, et al. Oral citicoline treatment improves visual pathway function in glaucoma. Med Sci Monit. 2003;9:P124-P128.
8. Parisi V. Electrophysiological assessment of glaucomatous visual dysfunction during treatment with cytidine-5′-diphosphocholine (citicoline): a study of 8 years of follow-up. Doc Ophthalmol. 2005;110:91-102.
9. Graham SL, Klistorner A, Grigg JR, Billson FA. Objective perimetry in glaucoma: recent advances with multifocal stimuli. Sum Ophthalmol. 1999;43(suppl 1):S199-S209.
10. Rodarte C, Hood D, Yang E, et al. The effects of glaucoma on the latency of the multifocal visual evoked potential. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90:1132-1136.
11. Hood DC, Thienprasiddhi P, Greenstein VC, et al. Detecting early to mild glaucomatous damage: a comparison of the multifocal VEP and automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:492-498.
12. Baseler HA, Sutter EE, Klein SA, Carney T. The topography of visual evoked response properties across the visual field. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1994;90:65-81.
13. Hood DC, Greenstein VC. Multifocal VEP and ganglion cell damage: applications and limitations for the study of glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2003;22:201-251.
14. Hood DC, Zhang X, Greenstein VC, Kangovi S, Odel JG, Liebmann JM, Ritch R. 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.
15. Hood DC, Zhang X, Hong JE, Chen CS. Quantifying the benefits of additional channels of multifocal VEP recording. Doc Ophthalmol. 2002;104:303-320.
16. Odom JV, Bach M, Barber C, et al. Visual evoked potentials standard. Doc Ophthalmol. 2004;108:115-123.
17. Hood DC, Ohri N, Yang EB, et al. Determining abnormal latencies of multifocal visual evoked potentials: a monocular analysis. Doc Ophthalmol. 2004;109:189-199.
18. Fortune B, Zhang X, Hood DC, Demirel S, Johnson CA. Normative ranges and specificity of the multifocal VEP. Doc Ophthalmol. 2004;109:87-100.
19. Hood, DC, Zhang X. Multifocal ERG and VEP responses and visual fields: comparing disease-related changes. Doc Ophthalmol. 2000;100.115-137.
20. Penne A, Fonda S. Influence of pupillary size on P100 latency time of pattern-reversal VEP. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser. 1981;27:255.
21. Sokol S, Moskowitz A, Towle VL. Age-related changes in the latency of the visual evoked potential: influence of check size. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1981;51:559-562.
22. Celesia GG, Kaufman D, Cone S. Effects of age and sex on pattern electroretinograms and visual evoked potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1987;68:161-171.
23. Chu N-S. Pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials: latency changes with gender and age. Clin Electroencephalogr. 1987;18.159-62.
24. Mitchell KW, Howe JW, Spencer SR. Visual evoked potentials in the older population: age and gender effects. Clin Phys Physiol Meas. 1987;8:317-324.
25. Tobimatsu S, Kurita-Tashima S, Nakayama-Hiromatsu M, Akazawa K, Kato M. Age-related changes in pattern visual evoked potentials: differential effects of luminance, contrast and check size. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1993;88:12-19.