Motion processing deficits in migraine are related to contrast sensitivity

Abstract

Background: There are conflicting reports concerning the ability of people with migraine to

Enhanced Motion Aftereffects in Migraine Are Related to Contrast Sensitivity: Implications for Models of Differences in Precortical/Cortical Function

“…Significant group and interaction effects confirmed this; however, the significant group difference was only found in the second analysis (ANCOVA) when contrast sensitivity was added as a covariate. Contrary to previous research, 14,27,29,30 and to what had been predicted, there was no statistically significant difference between the control and migraine groups in contrast sensitivity. There was, nevertheless, a trend for the migraine group to have higher contrast thresholds, that is, they needed higher contrasts to be able to see the gratings, and contrast sensitivity significantly predicted MAE duration.…”

“…10,13,14,30 In line with the predictions, the MAE in the migraine group lasted longer than in the control group and low contrast test displays produced the longest MAEs in both groups. Significant group and interaction effects confirmed this; however, the significant group difference was only found in the second analysis (ANCOVA) when contrast sensitivity was added as a covariate.…”

“…Shepherd, 7,13 therefore, discussed general models or descriptions of the motion aftereffect, as proposed by early researchers, such as Sutherland 21 and Barlow and Hill, 23 in the context of more recent models that have tried to anchor elements of the illusory aftereffect to particular stages of processing within the visual pathways (see prior reports 7,10,13,14 ). The conclusion was that multiple sites are involved in adaptation to motion, which can be tapped with careful selection of adapting and test displays.…”

“…This was decided due to previous research that has consistently failed to find significant differences between these subgroups in the magnitude of the MAE, nor in other motion tasks. 10,[13][14][15] …”

The Cortical Hyperexcitability Index (CHi): a new measure for quantifying correlates of visually driven cortical hyperexcitability

“…The items chosen for the CHi measure represent a comprehensive selection of visual experiences including a minority used in some previous questionnaire measures (Bell Halligan & Ellis, 2006;Conlon et al, 1999;Hollis & Allen, 2006;Irlen, 1983;Sierra & Berrios, 2000), those experiences reported from more objective investigations (i.e., those complemented by psychophysical, brain-stimulation and brainimaging studies on patient and control groups: Adjamian, Holliday, Barnes, Hillebrand, Hadjipapas et al, 2004;Brighina, Piazza, Daniele, & Fierro, 2002;Chronicle, Pearson, & Mulleners, 2006;Coutts, Cooper, Elwell, & Wilkins, 2012;Evans & Stevenson, 2008;Huang, Zong, Wilkins, Jenkins, Bozoki et al, 2003;Marcus & Soso, 1989;Palmer, Chronicle, Rolan, & Mulleners, 2000;Shepherd, Beaumont, & Hine, 2012;Wilkins et al, 1984;Wilkins, 1995), from experimental studies of hallucination proneness in non-clinical populations (Braithwaite et al, 2013a;2013b;Braithwaite Hulleman, Samson, Boglia & Applery, 2011), and neurological / clinical reviews of aura and their underlying mechanisms (Allen et al, 2008;Bien et al, 2000;Collerton, Perry, & McKeith, 2005;Elliot, Joyce & Shorvon, 2009a;2009b;Hadjikhani, del Rio, Wu, Schwartz, Bakker et al, 2001;Lauritzen, 2001;Manford & Andermann, 1998;Panayiotopoulos, 1999;Pietrobon & Striessnig, 2003;Siegel, 1977;Silberstein, 2004). The items included in the CHi are summarised in Table 1.…”