Some thoughts on the interpretation of steady-state evoked potentials

Steady-state evoked potentials are popular due to their easy analysis in frequency space and the availability of methods for objective response detection. However, the interpretation of steady-state responses can be challenging due to their origin as a sequence of responses to single stimuli. In the present paper, issues of signal extinction and some characteristics of higher harmonics are illustrated based on simple model data for those readers who do not regularly hobnob with frequency-space representations of data. It is important to realize that the absence of a steady-state response does not prove the lack of neural activity. For the same underlying reasons, namely constructive and destructive superposition of individual responses, comparisons of amplitudes between experimental conditions are prone to inaccuracies. Thus, before inferring physiology from steady-state responses, one should consider an alternative explanation in terms of signal composition.

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

[2]  P. Husar,et al.  A periodogram-based method for the detection of steady-state visually evoked potentials , 1998, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[3]  Ozcan Ozdamar,et al.  Deconvolution of evoked responses obtained at high stimulus rates. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  M. Bach,et al.  ISCEV Standard for full-field clinical electroretinography (2008 update) , 2009, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[5]  Hans Strasburger,et al.  THE ANALYSIS OF STEADY STATE EVOKED POTENTIALS REVISITED , 1987 .

[6]  Sven P. Heinrich,et al.  Permutation-Based Significance Tests for Multiharmonic Steady-State Evoked Potentials , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[7]  A. Norcia,et al.  Methods for the identification of evoked response components in the frequency and combined time/frequency domains. , 1986, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[8]  Don L. Jewett,et al.  The use of QSD (q-sequence deconvolution) to recover superposed, transient evoked-responses , 2004, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[9]  Steven W. Smith,et al.  The Scientist and Engineer's Guide to Digital Signal Processing , 1997 .

[10]  I. Rentschler,et al.  Amplitude and phase characteristics of the steady-state visual evoked potential. , 1988, Applied optics.

[11]  C. J. Tierra-Criollo,et al.  Objective Response Detection in an Electroencephalogram During Somatosensory Stimulation , 2000, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[12]  Sven P. Heinrich,et al.  Adaptation dynamics in pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials , 2001, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[13]  R A Dobie,et al.  Objective response detection in the frequency domain. , 1993, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

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

[15]  M. Bach,et al.  Do's and don'ts in Fourier analysis of steady-state potentials , 2004, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[16]  Antonio Fernando Catelli Infantosi,et al.  Multivariate Objective Response Detectors (MORD): Statistical Tools for Multichannel EEG Analysis During Rhythmic Stimulation , 2007, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[17]  O. Ozdamar,et al.  Methodology to Estimate the Transient Evoked Responses for the Generation of Steady State Responses , 2007, 2007 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[18]  S. A. Hillyard,et al.  Sustained division of the attentional spotlight , 2003, Nature.

[19]  Sven P. Heinrich,et al.  Fast stimulus sequences improve the efficiency of event-related potential P300 recordings , 2008, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[20]  B. Lütkenhöner.  Theoretical considerations on the detection of evoked responses by means of the Rayleigh test. , 1991, Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum.

[21]  Erich E. Sutter,et al.  The field topography of ERG components in man—I. The photopic luminance response , 1992, Vision Research.

[22]  J D Victor,et al.  Fluctuations of steady-state VEPs: interaction of driven evoked potentials and the EEG. , 1991, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[23]  M. Bach,et al.  On the statistical significance of electrophysiological steady-state responses , 2004, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[24]  J. Victor,et al.  A new statistic for steady-state evoked potentials. , 1991, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.