A short latency cortical component of the foveal VEP is revealed by hemifield stimulation.

Transient evoked potentials were recorded simultaneously over 5 electrodes placed in a horizontal row across the occiput. A range of spatial frequencies were presented as either full-field or hemifield stimuli. Subjects were 11 normal observers and 5 patients with lesions causing a homonymous hemianopic field defect. The shortest latency peak response was at approximately 70 msec, a negative potential (N70). For all spatial frequencies, full-field stimuli evoked a lower amplitude N70 at the midline than the sum of N70 amplitudes to two hemifield stimuli, suggesting partial cancellation. The latency and amplitude of N70 increased as spatial frequency increased. N70 and P100 differed in respect to their response to spatial frequency and field size, further suggesting that they may not be subsets of a unitary response. For hemifield stimulation, N70 had an ipsilateral maximum and attenuated or completely reversed in polarity across the midline. Consistent with the data of normals using hemifield stimuli, in 5 patients a full-field stimulus elicited an N70 lateralized contralaterally to the homonymous hemianopia, i.e., the ipsilateral N70 was absent. The absolute amplitude difference between the left and right electrodes was significant for hemifield stimulation in normals and full-field stimulation in the patients, but not for full-field stimulation in normals. Our results imply that the evaluation of N70 hemispheric distribution is useful for the evaluation of paramacular visual field defects.

[1]  G. Barrett,et al.  The effect of field size on the pattern reversal visual evoked response (PRVER) , 1989 .

[2]  B Julesz,et al.  Binocular stimulation reveals cortical components of the human visual evoked potential. , 1981, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[3]  N. Drasdo.  Cortical potentials evoked by pattern presentation in the foveal region , 1980 .

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

[5]  D. Lehmann,et al.  Multichannel Mapping of Spatial Distributions of Scalp Potential Fields Evoked by Checkerboard Reversal to Different Retinal Areas , 1979 .

[6]  M. Onofrj,et al.  Visual evoked potential diagnosis of field defects in patients with chiasmatic and retrochiasmatic lesions. , 1982, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[7]  V. Hömberg,et al.  Colour and brightness components of foveal visual evoked potentials in man. , 1984, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[8]  R. Srebro.  Realistic modeling of vep topography , 1990, Vision Research.

[9]  D. G. Green,et al.  Optical and retinal factors affecting visual resolution. , 1965, The Journal of physiology.

[10]  J. Robson,et al.  Probability summation and regional variation in contrast sensitivity across the visual field , 1981, Vision Research.

[11]  M. Ghilardi,et al.  N70 and P100 can be independently affected in multiple sclerosis. , 1991, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[12]  J. May,et al.  The effects of grating complexity on transient evoked potentials. , 1987, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[13]  G G Celesia,et al.  Visual evoked potentials with hemifield pattern stimulation. Their use in the diagnosis of retrochiasmatic lesions. , 1981, Archives of neurology.

[14]  The VEP and misrouted pathways in human albinism , 1986 .

[15]  D M Parker,et al.  The Spatial Selectivity of Early and Late Waves within the Human Visual Evoked Response , 1977, Perception.

[16]  G. Plant,et al.  Transient visually evoked potentials to the pattern reversal and onset of sinusoidal gratings. , 1983, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[17]  S. Butler,et al.  Cortical generators of the CI component of the pattern-onset visual evoked potential. , 1987, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[18]  A. Halliday,et al.  A comparison of occipital potentials evoked by pattern onset, offset and reversal by movement , 1980 .

[19]  J R Lishman,et al.  Visual-evoked responses elicited by the onset and offset of sinusoidal gratings: latency, waveform, and topographic characteristics. , 1982, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

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

[21]  J. May,et al.  Spatial frequency tuning in the visual evoked potential elicited by sine-wave gratings , 1984, Vision Research.

[22]  J P Joseph,et al.  Modifications of the pattern-evoked potential (PEP) in relation to the stimulated part of the visual field (clues for the most probable origin of each component). , 1979, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[23]  W. Hoyt,et al.  Monocularly and binocularly evoked visual responses to patterned half-field stimulation , 1980, Journal of the Neurological Sciences.

[24]  R Jones,et al.  Visual evoked response as a function of grating spatial frequency. , 1978, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[25]  A. Cowey,et al.  The ganglion cell and cone distributions in the monkey's retina: Implications for central magnification factors , 1985, Vision Research.

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