Methods for quantifying intra- and inter-subject variability of evoked potential data applied to the multifocal visual evoked potential

Differences in cortical geometry within and between subjects can complicate multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) and standard evoked potential (EP) intra- and inter-subject comparisons. We present methods for aligning temporal intra- and inter-subject data prior to comparison. Multiple groups have informally observed that the two dominant temporal principal components (PCs) of the pattern reversal visual evoked potential (VEP) obtained with singular value decomposition (SVD) exhibit little inter-subject variability relative to the inter-subject variability of the raw VEP. We present methods that employ the temporal PCs to formally quantify intra- and inter-subject variability of the mfVEP. When SVD was applied to data from eight subjects separately, it was found that two PCs accounted for, on average, 73% of intra-subject variance. When a single SVD was applied to combined data from multiple subjects, it was found that two PCs accounted for 67% of inter-subject variance. We used the 2D temporal subspaces derived from SVD as a basis for intra- and inter-subject comparisons.

[1]  S. Zeki,et al.  The chronoarchitecture of the cerebral cortex , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[2]  Donald C Hood,et al.  Conventional pattern-reversal VEPs are not equivalent to summed multifocal VEPs. , 2003, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[3]  G. Glover,et al.  Retinotopic organization in human visual cortex and the spatial precision of functional MRI. , 1997, Cerebral cortex.

[4]  A. James.  The pattern-pulse multifocal visual evoked potential. , 2003, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[5]  E. Sutter,et al.  M and P Components of the VEP and their Visual Field Distribution , 1997, Vision Research.

[6]  G. V. Simpson,et al.  Flow of activation from V1 to frontal cortex in humans , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

[7]  D. Dacey.  The mosaic of midget ganglion cells in the human retina , 1993, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[8]  Janette Atkinson,et al.  Form vs motion coherence sensitivity in infants: the dorsal/ventral developmental debate continues , 2004 .

[9]  Xian Zhang,et al.  Increasing the sensitivity of the multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) technique: incorporating information from higher order kernels using a principal component analysis method , 2004, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[10]  Scott D Slotnick,et al.  Darkness beyond the light: attentional inhibition surrounding the classic spotlight , 2002, Neuroreport.

[11]  Erich E. Sutter,et al.  The Fast m-Transform: A Fast Computation of Cross-Correlations with Binary m-Sequences , 1991, SIAM J. Comput..

[12]  H. Spekreijse,et al.  Principal components analysis for source localization of VEPs in man , 1987, Vision Research.

[13]  E. DeYoe,et al.  Mapping striate and extrastriate visual areas in human cerebral cortex. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[14]  Xian Zhang,et al.  A principal component analysis of multifocal pattern reversal VEP. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[15]  Justin M. Ales,et al.  Advances in multifocal methods for imaging human brain activity , 2006, Electronic Imaging.

[16]  Thom Carney,et al.  Using multi-stimulus VEP source localization to obtain a retinotopic map of human primary visual cortex , 1999, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[17]  S. Klein,et al.  The topography of visual evoked response properties across the visual field. , 1994, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[18]  Xian Zhang,et al.  The spatial distribution of selective attention assessed using the multifocal visual evoked potential , 2002, Vision Research.