The asymmetrical visual evoked potential to pattern reversal in one half field and its significance for the analysis of visual field defects.

The consistency of the major positive component (P100) of the full-field pattern-reversal response provides a clinically valuable and objective means of detecting visual field defects. Its normally symmetrical distribution about the midline of the occipital scalp results from the summation of two highly asymmetric half-field responses, each of which shows the positive component well lateralised with a widespread distribution on the ipsilateral side. Stimulation of each eye in patients with bitemporal and homonymous hemianopias results in two characteristic patterns of asymmetry, named 'crossed' and 'uncrossed' respectively, in which the major positivity is consistently recorded on the side ipsilateral to the preserved half field. Recordings from a patient after occipital lobectomy confirm the authors' previous suggestion that although the major positive component is recorded from the ipsilateral scalp the typical asymmetric half-field response is generated in the contralateral hemisphere.

[1]  W. Mcdonald,et al.  Visual Evoked Response in Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis , 1973, British medical journal.

[2]  G. Celesia,et al.  Visual electroencephalographic computer analysis (VECA) , 1977, Neurology.

[3]  E. Jonkman,et al.  The average visual response in patients with cerebrovascular disease. , 1969, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[4]  R. Katzman.,et al.  ALTERATIONS OF VISUAL EVOKED RESPONSE IN THE PRESENCE OF HOMONYMOUS VISUAL DEFECTS. , 1963, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[5]  K. A. Kooi,et al.  Visual evoked responses in lesions of the higher optic pathways , 1965, Neurology.

[6]  W. Mcdonald,et al.  Delayed visual evoked response in optic neuritis. , 1972, Lancet.

[7]  G. V. Lith,et al.  Visually evoked cortical potentials in the evaluation of homonymous and bitemporal visual field defects. , 1976, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[8]  G. Barrett,et al.  A paradox in the lateralisation of the visual evoked response , 1976, Nature.

[9]  W. Mcdonald,et al.  The pattern-evoked potential in compression of the anterior visual pathways. , 1976, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[10]  C. Shagass,et al.  Spatial distribution of potentials evoked by half-field pattern-reversal and pattern-onset stimuli. , 1976, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[11]  A M Halliday,et al.  Differences between the occipital distribution of upper and lower field pattern-evoked responses in man. , 1971, Brain research.

[12]  A Kriss,et al.  Proceedings: Paradoxical reversal of lateralization of the half-field pattern-evoked response with monopolar and bipolar electrode montages. , 1976, Journal of Physiology.

[13]  H. T. Howat,et al.  A comparison of the pepsin stimulating effects of secretin preparations. , 1976, The Journal of physiology.

[14]  J. G. Axford,et al.  Source locations of pattern-specific components of human visual evoked potentials. II. Component of extrastriate cortical origin , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[15]  G. Barrett,et al.  The effect of experimental 'scotomata' on the ipsilateral and contralateral responses to pattern-reversal in one half-field. , 1978, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[16]  W A Cobb,et al.  Evoked potentials from the human scalp to visual half-field stimulation. , 1970, The Journal of physiology.

[17]  C. Marsden,et al.  Visual evoked responses in the diagnosis and management of patients suspected of multiple sclerosis. , 1975, Brain : a journal of neurology.