Visual evoked potentials and eye dominance

Seyal, Masud; Sato, Sho; White, B. G.; Porter, Ruth

doi:10.1016/0013-4694(81)90025-0

Cited by 42 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The findings conform to the similar studies in the past. [21][22][23][24][25] In the present study, the latency of P100 wave was shorter in dominant eye, reflecting the faster conduction and activity in the visual cortex. Data of a study showed that the mean latency of P100 peak was significantly shorter with stimulation of the dominant eye and amplitude was higher in the dominant eye, which provides objective electrophysiological evidence of lateralization in the central nervous system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…Data of a study showed that the mean latency of P100 peak was significantly shorter with stimulation of the dominant eye and amplitude was higher in the dominant eye, which provides objective electrophysiological evidence of lateralization in the central nervous system. [25] Another similar study employed white-black, greenblack, red-black and blue-black pattern visual evoked potentials with normal visual acuity. The P100 latency of the white black PVEPS (pattern visual evoked potentials), for both sexes were significantly shorter in the PVEPs of the dominant eye.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of eye-dominance on pattern reversal visual evoked potentials

Gupta¹,

Gupta²

2016

Int J of Biomed & Adv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives: Ocular dominance refers to the tendency to prefer visual input from one eye to the other and is found in majority of the individuals. The role of eye dominance as one of the confounding physiologic variables affecting the PRVEP (pattern reversal visual evoked potential) responses needs to be evaluated. Hence, the present study was planned to assess the influence of eye dominance on the PRVEP records in the healthy subjects. Methods: The study was conducted on 52 healthy subjects in the age group of 18-65 years. Eye dominance was measured by Miles test and Porta test. PRVEP parameters were compared and analysed between the two eyes among the right eye and left eye dominant subjects by paired t-test. Results: 69% of the subjects were right eye dominants while 29% were left eye dominants. PRVEP mean P100 latency decreased and mean N75-P100 amplitude increased statistically significantly in the dominant eyes in both right and left eye dominant subjects. Conclusion: PRVEP records are influenced by eye dominance. One should take into account the effect of eye dominance while comparing the VEPs of two eyes of the same subject. Clinical interpretation should be done on the basis of the eyedominance matched normal subjects.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of eye-dominance on pattern reversal visual evoked potentials

Gupta¹,

Gupta²

2016

Int J of Biomed & Adv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both in the night shift workers and day workers, P100 wave amplitude of right eye was found to be greater than left eye. The P100 wave obtained by stimulating the dominant eye has greater amplitude when compared to non dominant eye in normal individuals [39].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Influence of Rotating Shift Work on Visual Reaction Time and Visual Evoked Potential

Hemamalini

Krishnamurthy

Saravanan

2014

JCDR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…One prior fMRI study by Rombouts et al, of 22 subjects found a slightly larger extent of activation in both occipital lobes when the sighting dominant eye was stimulated (with LED goggles) compared to the other eye [32]. Similar conclusions were reached by two VEP studies using monocular checkerboard stimuli [35,37]. However, none of these studies compared the different methods for assigning eye dominance.…”

Section: Nih Public Accessmentioning

confidence: 85%

Eye dominance predicts fMRI signals in human retinotopic cortex

Mendola

Conner

2007

Neuroscience Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There have been many attempts to define eye dominance in normal subjects, but limited consensus exists, and relevant physiological data is scarce. In this study, we consider two different behavioral methods for assignment of eye dominance, and how well they predict fMRI signals evoked by monocular stimulation. Sighting eye dominance was assessed with two standard tests, the Porta Test, and a 'hole in hand' variation of the Miles Test. Acuity dominance was tested with a standard eye chart and with a computerized test of grating acuity. We found limited agreement between the sighting and acuity methods for assigning dominance in our individual subjects. We then compared the fMRI response generated by dominant eye stimulation to that generated by non-dominant eye, according to both methods, in 7 normal subjects. The stimulus consisted of a high contrast hemifield stimulus alternating with no stimulus in a blocked paradigm. In separate scans, we used standard techniques to label the borders of visual areas V1, V2, V3, VP, V4, V3A, and MT. These regions of interest (ROIs) were used to analyze each visual area separately. We found that percent change in fMRI BOLD signal was stronger for the dominant eye as defined by the acuity method, and this effect was significant for areas located in the ventral occipital territory (V1v, V2v, VP, V4). In contrast, assigning dominance based on sighting produced no significant interocular BOLD differences. We conclude that interocular BOLD differences in normal subjects exist, and may be predicted by acuity measures.Keywords visual cortex; Portus; Miles; amblyopia; V1The concept of eye dominance in normal subjects, i.e., a consistent preference or advantage for using one of the two eyes, is well known and has been discussed for decades [19,23,27]. Nevertheless, the functional significance of eye dominance remains elusive, and, if present, it Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. [15,3]. The lack of consensus has lead several authors to express a rather pessimistic view of the significance of eye dominance: "Other than being the 'preferred' eye in some viewing situations, the sighting dominant eye has no special role for visual or oculomotor processes for the normal population" [19]. NIH Public AccessIn addition to the inconsistencies associated with sighting eye dominance, it has been unclear if this concept would have relevance to the processing of simple visual stimuli in retinotopic areas of visual cortex. One prior fMRI study by Rombouts et al., of 22 subjects found a slightly larger extent of activation in both occipit...

show abstract

Visual evoked potentials and eye dominance

Cited by 42 publications

References 3 publications

Impact of eye-dominance on pattern reversal visual evoked potentials

Impact of eye-dominance on pattern reversal visual evoked potentials

Influence of Rotating Shift Work on Visual Reaction Time and Visual Evoked Potential

Eye dominance predicts fMRI signals in human retinotopic cortex

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About