Assessing visual pathway function in multiple sclerosis patients with multifocal visual evoked potentials

Multiple Sclerosis

Volumn 15, Issue 12, 2009, Pages 1431-1441

  Laron, Michal ^a   Cheng, Han ^a   Zhang, Bin ^a   Schiffman, Jade S ^b   Tang, Rosa A ^c   Frishman, Laura J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Electrophysiology; Multifocal visual evoked potentials; Multiple sclerosis; Optic neuritis; Subclinical; Visual evoked potentials; Visual pathways

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; CRITERION VARIABLE; EVOKED VISUAL RESPONSE; FEMALE; HUMAN; LATENT PERIOD; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULIFOCAL EVOKED VISUAL RESPONSE; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; OPTIC NEURITIS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL SYSTEM FUNCTION;

ADULT; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES, OPHTHALMOLOGICAL; DISEASE PROGRESSION; EVOKED POTENTIALS, VISUAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS, CHRONIC PROGRESSIVE; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS, RELAPSING-REMITTING; OPTIC NEURITIS; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REACTION TIME; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; ROC CURVE; TIME FACTORS; VISUAL PATHWAYS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 72749102258     PISSN: 13524585     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1352458509350470     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Beck RW, Trobe JD, Moke PS, et al. High- and low-risk profiles for the development of multiple sclerosis within 10 years after optic neuritis: experience of the optic neuritis treatment trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2003 ; 121: 944-949. (doi:10.1001/archopht.121.7.944 121/7/944 [pii]).
2. Cleary PA, Beck RW, Bourque LB, Backlund JC, Miskala PH Visual symptoms after optic neuritis. Results from the Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial. J Neuroophthalmol 1997 ; 17: 18-23.
3. Electrophysiologic Testing in Disorders of the Retina, Optic Nerve, and Visual Pathway. Vol 85, 2 nd edn. San Francisco: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, 2001.
4. Frederiksen JL, Petrera J. Serial visual evoked potentials in 90 untreated patients with acute optic neuritis. Surv Ophthalmol 1999 ; 44 (Suppl 1). S54-62.
5. Halliday AM, McDonald WI, Mushin J. Delayed visual evoked response in optic neuritis. Lancet 1972 ; 1: 982-985.
6. Halliday AM, McDonald WI, Mushin J. Visual evoked response in diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Br Med J 1973 ; 4: 661-664.
7. Halliday AM, McDonald WI, Mushin J. Delayed pattern-evoked responses in optic neuritis in relation to visual acuity. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K 1973 ; 93: 315-324.
8. Heckenlively J., Arden GB Principles and practice of clinical electrophysiology of vision. 2 nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press ; 2006.
9. Fortune B., Hood DC Conventional pattern-reversal VEPs are not equivalent to summed multifocal VEPs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003 ; 44: 1364-1375.
10. 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.
11. Sutter EE The fast m-transform: a fast computation of cross-correlations with binary m-sequences. SIAM J Comput 1991 ; 20: 686-694. (doi:10.1137/0220043) .
12. Goldberg I., Graham SL, Klistorner AI Multifocal objective perimetry in the detection of glaucomatous field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 2002 ; 133: 29-39. (doi:S0002939401012946 [pii]).
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. (doi:S1350946202000617 [pii]).
14. 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.
15. Fraser CL, Klistorner A., Graham SL, Garrick R., Billson FA, Grigg JR Multifocal visual evoked potential analysis of inflammatory or demyelinating optic neuritis. Ophthalmology 2006 ; 113: 323e1-323.e2. (doi:S0161-6420(05) 01222-4 [pii] 10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.10.017).
16. Klistorner A., Arvind H., Nguyen T., et al. Axonal loss and myelin in early ON loss in postacute optic neuritis. Ann Neurol 2008 ; 64: 325-331. (doi:10.1002/ana.21474).
17. Pakrou N., Casson R., Kaines A., Selva D. Multifocal objective perimetry compared with Humphrey full-threshold perimetry in patients with optic neuritis. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2006 ; 34: 562-567. (doi:CEO1277 [pii] 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2006.01277.x).
18. Yang EB, Hood DC, Rodarte C., Zhang X., Odel JG, Behrens MM Improvement in conduction velocity after optic neuritis measured with the multifocal VEP. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007 ; 48: 692-698. (doi:48/2/692 [pii] 10.1167/iovs.06-0475).
19. Klistorner A., Arvind H., Nguyen T., et al. Fellow eye changes in optic neuritis correlate with the risk of multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2009 ; 15: 928-932. (doi:1352458509105228 [pii]10.1177/1352458509105228).
20. Fortune B., Zhang X., Hood DC, Demirel S., Johnson CA Normative ranges and specificity of the multifocal VEP. Doc Ophthalmol 2004 ; 109: 87-100.
21. 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. (Pubitemid 40468413)
22. Hood DC, Zhang X., Rodarte C., et al. Determining abnormal interocular latencies of multifocal visual evoked potentials. Doc Ophthalmol 2004 ; 109: 177-187. (Pubitemid 40468412)
23. Cheng H., Laron M., Schiffman JS, et al. Assessing visual pathway function in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients using multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) technique. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2007 ; E-Abstract 3765.
24. Optic Neuritis Study Group. (1991). The clinical profile of optic neuritis. Experience of the Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial. Arch Ophthalmol 1991 ; 109: 1673-1678.
25. Hickman SJ, Dalton CM, Miller DH, Plant GT Management of acute optic neuritis. Lancet 2002 ; 360: 1953-1962. (doi:S0140673602119192 [pii]).
26. Sutter EE Imaging visual function with the multifocal m-sequence technique. Vision Res 2001 ; 41: 1241-1255. (doi:S0042-6989(01)00078-5 [pii]).
27. Hood DC, Zhang X., Hong JE, Chen CS Quantifying the benefits of additional channels of multifocal VEP recording. Doc Ophthalmol 2002 ; 104: 303-320.
28. Brusa A., Jones SJ, Kapoor R., Miller DH, Plant GT Long-term recovery and fellow eye deterioration after optic neuritis, determined by serial visual evoked potentials. J Neurol 1999 ; 246: 776-782. (doi:92460776.415 [pii]).
29. Brusa A., Jones SJ, Plant GT Long-term remyelination after optic neuritis: A 2-year visual evoked potential and psychophysical serial study. Brain 2001 ; 124: 468-479.
30. Hickman SJ, Toosy AT, Miszkiel KA, et al. Visual recovery following acute optic neuritis - a clinical, electrophysiological and magnetic resonance imaging study. J Neurol 2004 ; 251: 996-1005. (doi:10.1007/s00415-004-0477-1).
31. Hidajat RR, Goode DH Normalisation of visual evoked potentials after optic neuritis. Doc Ophthalmol 2003 ; 106: 305-309.
32. Klistorner A., Graham S., Fraser C., et al. Electrophysiological evidence for heterogeneity of lesions in optic neuritis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007 ; 48: 4549-4556. (doi:48/10/4549 [pii] 10.1167/iovs.07-0381).
33. Graham SL, Klistorner AI, Grigg JR, Billson FA Objective VEP perimetry in glaucoma: asymmetry analysis to identify early deficits. J Glaucoma 2000 ; 9: 10-19.
34. Hood DC, Zhang X., Winn BJ Detecting glaucomatous damage with multifocal visual evoked potentials: how can a monocular test work? J Glaucoma 2003 ; 12: 3-15.
35. 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.
36. Heravian-Shandiz J., Douthwaite WA, Jenkins TC Binocular interaction with neutral density filters as measured by the visual evoked response. Optom Vis Sci 1991 ; 68: 801-806.
37. Katsumi O., Tanino T., Hirose T. Objective evaluation of binocular function using the pattern reversal visual evoked response. II. Effect of mean luminosity. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1986 ; 64: 199-205. (Pubitemid 16114916)
38. Klistorner A., Fraser C., Garrick R., Graham S., Arvind H. Correlation between full-field and multifocal VEPs in optic neuritis. Doc Ophthalmol 2008 ; 116: 19-27. (doi:10.1007/s10633-007-9072-y).
39. Grover LK, Hood DC, Ghadiali Q., et al. A comparison of multifocal and conventional visual evoked potential techniques in patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis. Doc Ophthalmol 2008 ; 117: 121-128. (doi:10.1007/ s10633-007-9112-7).
40. Noval S., Contreras I., Rebolleda G., Munoz-Negrete FJ Optical coherence tomography versus automated perimetry for follow-up of optic neuritis. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2006 ; 84: 790-794. (doi:AOS724 [pii] 10.1111/j.1600-0420.2006. 00724.x).
41. Fortune B., Demirel S., Zhang X., Hood DC, Johnson CA Repeatability of normal multifocal VEP: implications for detecting progression. J Glaucoma 2006 ; 15: 131-141. (doi:00061198-200604000-00010 [pii]).
42. Klistorner A., Graham SL Intertest variability of mfVEP amplitude: reducing its effect on the interpretation of sequential tests. Doc Ophthalmol 2005 ; 111: 159-167. (doi:10.1007/s10633-005-5363-3).
43. James AC, Ruseckaite R., Maddess T. Effect of temporal sparseness and dichoptic presentation on multifocal visual evoked potentials. Vis Neurosci 2005 ; 22: 45-54. (doi:S0952523805221053 [pii] 10.1017/S0952523805221053). (Pubitemid 40675764)
44. Ruseckaite R., Maddess T., Danta G., Lueck CJ, James AC Sparse multifocal stimuli for the detection of multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 2005 ; 57: 904-913. (doi:10.1002/ ana.20504).
45. Cheng H., Laron M., Schiffman JS, Tang RA, Frishman LJ The relationship between visual field and retinal nerve fiber layer measurements in patients with multiple sclerosis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007 ; 48: 5798-5805. (doi:48/12/5798 [pii] 10.1167/iovs.07-0738).