Optimal conditions for multifocal VEP recording for normal Japanese population established by receiver operating characteristic analysis

The purpose of this study was to establish optimal conditions for recording multifocal visual evoked potentials (mVEPs) in Japanese individuals, whose skull frame presumably differs from Caucasians. The scalp point that was extended from the calcarine fissure was identified using magnetic resonance imaging scans of 200 subjects. MVEPs were recorded from 56 individuals using three single channels and combinations of vertical and horizontal channels. Five electrodes were placed at the inion, 4 cm above the inion, 2.5 cm below the inion, 4 cm to the left or 4 cm to the right of the inion. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was obtained by measuring the root-mean-square (RMS) amplitude of a signal window (45–150 ms) from each of 60-local responses that was divided by the average of the 60 RMS amplitudes of the noise window (325–430 ms). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were performed based on the proportion of mVEP responses that exceeded a specific SNR criterion, calculated for both the signal window and the noise window. The position of the calcarine fissure relative to the inion was significantly lower than the value reported for Caucasians. The ROC analyses disclosed that bi-channel combinations (one vertical and one horizontal) had significantly better performance to discriminate signal from noise in 60-local mVEP responses compared to any single channel and performed similarly to the tri-channel combination. Two sets of perpendicular channels should be simultaneously used in recording mVEP responses from Japanese people, among whom skull frame characteristics differ from those observed in Caucasians.

[1]  Donald C. Hood,et al.  Multifocal ERG and VEP responses and visual fields: comparing disease-related changes , 2004, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[2]  Donald C. Hood,et al.  Quantifying the benefits of additional channels of multifocal VEP recording , 2002, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[3]  D. Hood,et al.  Detecting Glaucomatous Damage with Multifocal Visual Evoked Potentials: How Can a Monocular Test Work? , 2003, Journal of glaucoma.

[4]  W. H. Dobelle,et al.  The topography and variability of the primary visual cortex in man. , 1974, Journal of neurosurgery.

[5]  Thomas Meigen,et al.  Optimizing electrode positions and analysis strategies for multifocal VEP recordings by ROC analysis , 2007, Vision Research.

[6]  S. Graham,et al.  Objective perimetry in glaucoma. , 2000, Ophthalmology.

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

[8]  H. Steinmetz,et al.  Craniocerebral topography within the international 10-20 system. , 1989, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[9]  D. Altman,et al.  Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method , 1995, BMJ.

[10]  Bin Zhang,et al.  Comparison of multifocal visual evoked potential, standard automated perimetry and optical coherence tomography in assessing visual pathway in multiple sclerosis patients , 2010, Multiple sclerosis.

[11]  S Tobimatsu,et al.  Age-related changes in pattern visual evoked potentials: differential effects of luminance, contrast and check size. , 1993, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[12]  S L Graham,et al.  Electroencephalogram-based scaling of multifocal visual evoked potentials: effect on intersubject amplitude variability. , 2001, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[13]  J. Hanley Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methodology: the state of the art. , 1989, Critical reviews in diagnostic imaging.

[14]  V. Greenstein,et al.  A comparison of multifocal and conventional visual evoked potential techniques in patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis , 2008, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[15]  Donald C. Hood,et al.  A signal-to-noise analysis of multifocal VEP responses: an objective definition for poor records , 2002, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[16]  S. Graham,et al.  Multifocal topographic visual evoked potential: improving objective detection of local visual field defects. , 1998, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[17]  D. Kaufman,et al.  Effects of age and sex on pattern electroretinograms and visual evoked potentials. , 1987, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[18]  D. Creel,et al.  Pattern reversal evoked potentials: gender differences and age-related changes in amplitude and latency. , 1994, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[19]  J. Swets The Relative Operating Characteristic in Psychology , 1973, Science.

[20]  Alexander Klistorner,et al.  Correlation between full-field and multifocal VEPs in optic neuritis , 2007, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[21]  Donald C. Hood,et al.  Normative ranges and specificity of the multifocal VEP , 2004, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

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

[23]  J. W. Howe,et al.  Visual evoked potentials in the older population: age and gender effects. , 1987, Clinical physics and physiological measurement : an official journal of the Hospital Physicists' Association, Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Medizinische Physik and the European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics.

[24]  B. Brown,et al.  Investigation of multifocal visual evoked potential in anisometropic and esotropic amblyopes. , 1998, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[25]  Donald C Hood,et al.  Multifocal VEP and ganglion cell damage: applications and limitations for the study of glaucoma , 2003, Progress in Retinal and Eye Research.

[26]  Nitin Ohri,et al.  Detecting early to mild glaucomatous damage: a comparison of the multifocal VEP and automated perimetry. , 2004, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.