Determining abnormal interocular latencies of multifocal visual evoked potentials

Hood, Donald C.; Zhang, Xian; Rodarte, C.; Yang, E.B.; Ohri, Nitin; Fortune, Brad; Johnson, Chris A.

doi:10.1007/s10633-004-5511-1

Cited by 30 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The two runs for each channel were averaged, and further analyzed using a program written in commercial software (MatLab; The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA). The program and methods of determining monocular and interocular latency have been previously described in detail [8,9,19,21].…”

Section: Mfvepmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Relative interocular latency was measured as the temporal shift producing the best crosscorrelation value between the corresponding responses of each eye for each of the 60 locations and its corresponding best channel [9]. As in the monocular analysis, mfVEP(latency), mfVEP (percent abnormal), and mfVEP(cluster) were measured.…”

Section: Mfvepmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, the cVEP sums responses from a wide region of the field. Thus, local delays may be lost in the process [8,9]. Further, since the lower field can contribute more to the cVEP than the upper field [6,[10][11][12][13], the cVEP is less likely to detect upper field defects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A comparison of multifocal and conventional visual evoked potential techniques in patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis

et al. 2008

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-To compare conventional visual evoked potential (cVEP) and multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) methods in patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis (ON/MS).Methods-mfVEPs and cVEPs were obtained from eyes of the 19 patients with multiple sclerosis confirmed on MRI scans, and from eyes of 40 normal controls. For the mfVEP, the display was a pattern-reversal dartboard array, 48° in diameter, which contained 60 sectors. Monocular cVEPs were obtained using a checkerboard stimulus with check sizes of 15′ and 60′. For the cVEP, the latency of P100 for both check sizes were measured, while for the mfVEP, the mean latency, percent of locations with abnormal latency, and clusters of contiguous abnormal locations were obtained.Results-For a specificity of 95%, the mfVEP(interocular cluster criterion) showed the highest sensitivity (89.5%) of the 5 monocular or interocular tests. Similarly, when a combined monocular/ © Springer-Verlag 2008Correspondence to: Donald C. Hood, dch3@columbia.edu. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript interocular criterion was employed, the mfVEP(cluster criterion) had the highest sensitivity (94.7%)/ specificity (90%), missing only one patient. The combined monocular/interocular cVEP(60′) test had a sensitivity (84.2%)/specificity (90%), missing 3 patients, 2 more than did the monocular/interocular mfVEP(cluster) test. NIH Public AccessConclusion-As the cVEP is more readily available and currently a shorter test, it should be used to screen patients for ON/MS with mfVEP testing added when the cVEP test is negative and the damage is local.

show abstract

Section: Mfvepmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mfvepmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A comparison of multifocal and conventional visual evoked potential techniques in patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis

et al. 2008

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While a few studies report information about the latency of the mfVEP (e.g. [5][6][7][8][9]), only one, to our knowledge, provides quantitative information about latency [9]. In that study, the results for responses summed across hemifields were analyzed because 'the latency could not be analyzed for individual' responses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determining abnormal latencies of multifocal visual evoked potentials: a monocular analysis

et al. 2004

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A defective cluster had two or more contiguous points at P \ 0.01 or three or more contiguous points at P \ 0.05 with at least one point at P \ 0.01 [25].…”

Section: Multifocal Visual Evoked Potential Recordings and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of multifocal visual evoked potentials in patients with Graves’ orbitopathy and subclinical optic nerve involvement

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dysthyroid optic neuropathy is the most serious, although infrequent (8-10 %) complication in Graves' orbitopathy (GO). It is known that early stages of compressive optic neuropathy may produce reversible visual field defects, suggesting axoplasmic stasis rather than ganglion cell death. This observational, cross-sectional, case-control study assessed 34 consecutive patients (65 eyes) with Graves' hyperthyroidism and longstanding GO and 31 age-matched control subjects. The patients' multifocal visual evoked potentials (mfVEP) were compared to their clinical and psychophysical (standard automated perimetry [SAP]) and structural (optic coherence tomography [OCT]) diagnostic test data. Abnormal cluster defects were found in 12.3 % and 3.1 % of eyes on the interocular and monocular amplitude analysis mfVEP probability plots, respectively. As well, mfVEP latencies delays were found in 13.8 and 20 % of eyes on the interocular and monocular analysis probability plots, respectively. Interestingly, 19 % of patients with GO had ocular hypertension, and a strong correlation between intraocular pressure measured at upgaze and mfVEP latency was found. MfVEP amplitudes and visual acuity were significantly related to each other (P < 0.05), but not with the latencies delays. However, relationships between the interocular or monocular mfVEP amplitudes and latencies analysis and SAP indices or OCT data were not statistically significant. One-third of our patients with GO showed changes in the mfVEP, indicating significant subclinical optic nerve dysfunction. In this sense, the mfVEP may be a useful diagnostic tool in the clinic for early diagnosis and monitoring of optic nerve function abnormalities in patients with GO.

show abstract

Determining abnormal interocular latencies of multifocal visual evoked potentials

Abstract: In testing for abnormalities in interocular latencies, the confidence interval should be based upon the SNR of the response. Grouping and summing responses to increase SNR or employing a cluster test may also prove useful.

Cited by 30 publications

References 22 publications

A comparison of multifocal and conventional visual evoked potential techniques in patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis

A comparison of multifocal and conventional visual evoked potential techniques in patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis

Determining abnormal latencies of multifocal visual evoked potentials: a monocular analysis

Evaluation of multifocal visual evoked potentials in patients with Graves’ orbitopathy and subclinical optic nerve involvement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About