2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2021.02.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effect of wavelength on the variability of the flash visual evoked potential P2: A potential biomarker for mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's dementia

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…36,37,[38][39][40] In fact, research conducted by our laboratory indicated, unlike Subramanian and colleagues 41 , that the use of a blue optical filter with a transmission peak at 493 nm (ie, the wavelength of blue light only served to decrease the amplitude of the FVEP-P2 latency [response]), making it more difficult to identify the P2 component. 27 Therefore, selectively recruiting either the medium-and/or long-wavelength cones through the use of a red optical filter, combined with a briefer, but brighter strobe presentation, might produce a more precise P2 response and reduce the natural variability often associated with the recording of the FVEP-P2 latency.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…36,37,[38][39][40] In fact, research conducted by our laboratory indicated, unlike Subramanian and colleagues 41 , that the use of a blue optical filter with a transmission peak at 493 nm (ie, the wavelength of blue light only served to decrease the amplitude of the FVEP-P2 latency [response]), making it more difficult to identify the P2 component. 27 Therefore, selectively recruiting either the medium-and/or long-wavelength cones through the use of a red optical filter, combined with a briefer, but brighter strobe presentation, might produce a more precise P2 response and reduce the natural variability often associated with the recording of the FVEP-P2 latency.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As noted previously, laboratory-specific differences in recording parameters, acquisition systems, presentation systems, and stimulus characteristics may affect the latencies and amplitudes obtained from individual clinics. 1,[25][26][27] To control for such effects, Odom et al 25,26 suggested that clinics construct laboratory-based norms to determine whether obtained latencies are within normal limits. Below we demonstrate, by way of example, the process by which an investigator may standardize laboratory-based latencies and compare them to the latencies published previously by other investigators by using FVEP-P2 Conversion Scores.…”
Section: Calculation Of Fvep-p2 Conversion Scores Using Laboratory-ba...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…21 It was postulated that this variable could express the reduction of cholinergic functioning in the associative visual areas, where the P2 is thought to be generated. 22,23 However, it did not enter clinical practice because of high inter-individual variability 6 and high intra-individual variability of the P2 latency measured with single 24 and paired flash stimulation. 25 The paired stimulation has been used to increase the accuracy of these tests 3 focusing on P2 latency recovery: a higher predictive accuracy than the single flash condition was detected for an ISI of 100 ms.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…21 It was postulated that this variable could express the reduction of cholinergic functioning in the associative visual areas, where the P2 is thought to be generated. 22,23 However, it did not enter clinical practice because of high inter-individual variability 6 and high intra-individual variability of the P2 latency measured with single 24 and paired flash stimulation. 25…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%