Visual function and pattern visual evoked response in optic neuritis.

Sanders, E. A. C. M.; Volkers, A.; Poel, J. C. Van Der; Lith, G H van

doi:10.1136/bjo.71.8.602

Cited by 25 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There is general agreement that pattern-reversal VEPs are valuable in the detection of amblyopia [5][6][7][8], RBN [9][10][11][12], and MS [13][14][15][16][17][18][19], as was also indicated by the findings in this report. However, pattern-reversal VEPs test probably only one of the two parallel visual pathways [20], namely the P system responsible for detection of form, and do not verify the functional state of the second pathway (motion-specific M system).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Clinical application of motion-onset visual evoked potentials

Kubová

Kuba

1992

Doc Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results of motion-onset visual evoked potentials and pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials were compared in 5 adults with amblyopia, in 13 patients with unilateral retrobulbar neuritis and in 62 patients with multiple sclerosis. While the pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials had reduced amplitudes and prolonged latencies in all amblyopic eyes, the motion-onset visual evoked potentials were normal. Thus, motion-onset visual evoked potentials cannot be used for diagnosis of amblyopia. In patients with retrobulbar neuritis, both types of visual evoked potentials were delayed on stimulation of the affected eye. The latency increase was, however, greater for pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials than for motion-onset visual evoked potentials. Examination of the patients with multiple sclerosis showed that the additional use of motion-onset visual evoked potentials increased the sensitivity of the investigation. In some patients, only the motion-onset visual evoked potentials had pathologic latency increases, whereas the pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials stayed within normal limits.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Clinical application of motion-onset visual evoked potentials

Kubová

Kuba

1992

Doc Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These results agree with previous reports [25,26]. In this group, 20/68 (29.5%) eyes showed a PVER acuity that was higher than the SA by >3.0 octaves.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Snellen Visual Acuity versus Pattern Reversal Visual-Evoked Response Acuity in Clinical Applications

Ohn

Katsumi²,

Matsui³

et al. 1994

Ophthalmic Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We compared the best-corrected Snellen acuity (SA) and the pattern reversal visual-evoked response (PVER) acuity in normal subjects and patients. Forty-two eyes of 42 normal subjects were controls; 457 eyes of 329 patients comprised the patient group. A steady-state stimulus with five check sizes ranging from 160 to 10 min in 1.0-octave steps was used. The PVER acuity was derived from the best-fit linear function relating the amplitude to the log-adjusted check size. Three intercepts of 0, 1 and 2 μV were used in both groups, and the PVER acuities were called P°, P¹ and P². The SAs in normal subjects ranged from 20/15 to 20/20 (mean, 20/18.3) and in patients from 20/15 to 20/1,600 (mean, 20/56.9). In normals, the P° showed the best agreement with the SA (mean acuity difference, +0.34 octave). The SA and P° agreed within ± 2.0 octaves in 33/42 (78.6%) eyes. In patients, the P° also showed the best agreement with the SA; 306/457 (67.0%) eyes showed an acuity difference within ± 2.0 octaves. Unlike normals, 83/ 457 (18.2%) eyes showed an acuity difference > -3.0 octaves. These eyes mostly had optic nerve disease with a flattened PVER amplitude-check size function curve. The P° seems to correlate better with SA than P¹ and P², but this analytical method may be less effective in the presence of certain pathologic conditions.

show abstract

“…A recent study with comparison of tests [30,31] found no correlation of VEP latency with the other tests but suggested that VEP amplitude did relate to other methods. Amplitude is determined by the number of functioning neurones.…”

Section: Optic Neuritismentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual function in multiple sclerosis

1989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

126 patients with multiple sclerosis and normal visual acuity were submitted to a battery of tests of visual function. The investigation included visual evoked potential, contrast sensitivity by three methods, and a segment of the Farnsworth-Munsell 100 Hue test. 22 of the patients gave a history of unilateral acute optic neuritis and in these the abnormalities were greater in degree. Contrast sensitivity emerged as the most useful test and was abnormal in 92.2% of eyes. Visual evoked potential was delayed in 35.6% and colour vision was abnormal in less than a third. In general, contrast sensitivity was depressed at all frequencies and most of the abnormalities could be identified by testing at a single frequency of 4 cycles/degree.

show abstract

Visual function and pattern visual evoked response in optic neuritis.

Cited by 25 publications

References 24 publications

Clinical application of motion-onset visual evoked potentials

Clinical application of motion-onset visual evoked potentials

Snellen Visual Acuity versus Pattern Reversal Visual-Evoked Response Acuity in Clinical Applications

Visual function in multiple sclerosis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About