Effects of sweep VEP parameters on visual acuity and contrast thresholds in children and adults

BackgroundThere are many parameters that may impact the thresholds obtained with sweep visually evoked potentials (sVEP), yet a number of these parameters have not been systematically studied, and there is no recognised standard for sVEP recording. In this study, the effects of electrode placement, temporal frequency, sweep direction, presence of a fixation target, stimulus area, and sweep duration on visual acuity (VA) and contrast thresholds of the sVEP were investigated. Additionally, the effect of these parameters on the number of viable threshold readings obtained from five active electrodes was investigated.MethodsParticipants were six children (aged 6-8 years) and six adults (aged 17-30 years) with normal vision. Binocular sVEP VA and contrast thresholds were measured for two electrode placements (ISCEV and PowerDiva) of five active electrodes, three temporal frequencies (6, 7.5, and 10 Hz), two sweep directions (low to high and high to low), presence or absence of a fixation target, three stimulus areas, and three sweep durations.ResultsThere were differences between adults and children with respect to visual acuity, the adults having better VA than the children (p = 0.033 in experiment 2). Overall, there were more viable readings at 7.5 Hz than at either 10 or 6 Hz (p = 0.0014 for VA and 0.001 for contrast thresholds). The adults performed better (in terms of viable readings) with the fixation target than without it (p = 0.04). The smallest stimulus size used gave rise to fewer viable readings in both adults and children (p = 0.022 for VA and 0.0001 for contrast thresholds). The other parameters (electrode placement, sweep direction and sweep duration) did not give rise to significant differences.ConclusionsA temporal frequency of 7.5 Hz, a stimulus area of 4° or larger for VA and 10° or larger for contrast thresholds, and the use of a fixation target gave more viable readings, and may be indicated for future application. Consideration of the number of viable readings showed more differences between parameters than the actual thresholds, and it is suggested that more readings presumably would yield more reliable threshold measurements.

[1]  B. J. Winer.  Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 1992 .

[2]  C W Tyler,et al.  Infant VEP acuity measurements: analysis of individual differences and measurement error. , 1985, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[3]  Anthony M. Norcia,et al.  Measurement of spatial contrast sensitivity with the swept contrast VEP , 1989, Vision Research.

[4]  T. Hirose,et al.  Simultaneous pattern reversal ERG and VER recordings. Effect of stimulus field and central scotoma. , 1990, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[5]  T Rowan Candy,et al.  Spatial vision deficits in infants and children with Down syndrome. , 2004, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[6]  A. Moskowitz,et al.  Infant VEP and preferential looking acuity measured with phase alternating gratings. , 1992, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[7]  Michael Bach,et al.  ISCEV standard for clinical visual evoked potentials (2009 update) , 2010, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[8]  V Zemon,et al.  An Electrophysiological Technique for Assessment of the Development of Spatial Vision , 1997, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[9]  C. Hou,et al.  Sweep visual evoked potential grating acuity thresholds paradoxically improve in low-luminance conditions in children with cortical visual impairment. , 2006, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[10]  M Bach,et al.  Visual evoked potential-based acuity assessment in normal vision, artificially degraded vision, and in patients , 2008, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[11]  A. Norcia,et al.  Development of Grating Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity in the Central and Peripheral Visual Field of the Human Infant , 1996, Vision Research.

[12]  A. Norcia,et al.  An adaptive filter for steady-state evoked responses. , 1995, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[13]  G. Sandini,et al.  Visual acuity in the young infant is highest in a small retinal area , 1983, Vision Research.

[14]  Evoked potential assessment of cortical adaptation. , 1988, Applied optics.

[15]  A. Norcia,et al.  Comparative Study of Electrophysiological and Psychophysical Measurement of the Contrast Sensitivity Function in Humans , 1986, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

[16]  I. Gottlob,et al.  PREDICTING OPTOTYPE VISUAL ACUITY BY SWEPT SPATIAL VISUAL-EVOKED POTENTIALS , 1993 .

[17]  S. Feldon,et al.  Sweep visual evoked potential evaluation of contrast sensitivity in Alzheimer's dementia. , 2003, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[18]  L. Hainline,et al.  Comparison of Measures of Visual Acuity in Infants: Teller Acuity Cards and Sweep Visual Evoked Potentials , 1997, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[19]  C. L. Jensen,et al.  Evaluation of methods for assessing visual function of infants. , 1997 .

[20]  Pattern electroretinogram threshold does not show contrast adaptation. , 1987, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[21]  D. Peterzell,et al.  Development of Spatial Frequency Tuned “Covariance” Channels: Individual Differences in the Electrophysiological (VEP) Contrast Sensitivity Function , 1997, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[22]  W. Seiple,et al.  An examination of VEP response phase. , 1989, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[23]  D. Ventura,et al.  Contrast sensitivity threshold measured by sweep-visual evoked potential in term and preterm infants at 3 and 10 months of age. , 2004, Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologicas.

[24]  J V Odom,et al.  Visual acuity measurements by swept spatial frequency visual-evoked-cortical potentials (VECPs): clinical application in children with various visual disorders. , 1990, Journal of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus.

[25]  J. Nelson,et al.  The assessment of evoked potential contrast thresholds using real-time retrieval. , 1984, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[26]  A. Norcia,et al.  Electrophysiological assessment of contrast sensitivity in human infants. , 1986, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

[27]  Relationship between vision and motor impairment in children with spastic cerebral palsy: new evidence from electrophysiology , 2004, Behavioural Brain Research.

[28]  J. Nelson,et al.  Spatiotemporal conditions which elicit or abolish the oblique effect in man: Direct measurement with swept evoked potential , 1984, Vision Research.

[29]  A. Herbert,et al.  Stimulus duration, neural adaptation, and sweep visual evoked potential acuity estimates. , 1998, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[30]  Comparison of Snellen acuity and objective assessment using the spatial frequency sweep PVER , 1997, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[31]  K. Michaelsen,et al.  Test-Retest Reliability of Swept Visual Evoked Potential Measurements of Infant Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity , 2004, Pediatric Research.

[32]  Susan J. Leat,et al.  Threshold determination in sweep VEP and the effects of criterion , 2009, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[33]  Ming-Wei Zhao,et al.  A new method of extrapolating the sweep pattern visual evoked potential acuity , 2007, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[34]  Susan J Leat,et al.  The technique, validity and clinical use of the sweep VEP , 2008, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[35]  C W Tyler,et al.  High visual contrast sensitivity in the young human infant. , 1988, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[36]  K Nakayama,et al.  Rapid assessment of visual function: an electronic sweep technique for the pattern visual evoked potential. , 1979, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[37]  Comparison of preferential looking acuity and pattern reversal visual evoked response acuity in pediatric patients , 1997, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[38]  A. Norcia,et al.  Spatial frequency sweep VEP: Visual acuity during the first year of life , 1985, Vision Research.

[39]  Anthony M. Norcia,et al.  Development of contrast sensitivity in the human infant , 1990, Vision Research.

[40]  B. J. Winer.  Single-factor experiments having repeated measures on the same elements. , 1962 .

[41]  J. Nelson,et al.  A rapid evoked potential index of cortical adaptation. , 1984, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[42]  A. Norcia,et al.  The development of monocular and binocular VEP acuity , 1989, Vision Research.

[43]  A. Moskowitz,et al.  Infant grating acuity is temporally tuned , 1988, Vision Research.

[44]  T. Hirose,et al.  Effect of number of elements and size of stimulus field on recordability of pattern reversal visual evoked response. , 1988, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[45]  M. Rouse,et al.  Predicting potential acuities in amblyopes , 2007, Documenta Ophthalmologica.