A comparison of multifocal and conventional visual evoked potential techniques in patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis

Purpose To compare conventional visual evoked potential (cVEP) and multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) methods in patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis (ON/MS). Methods mfVEPs and cVEPs were obtained from eyes of the 19 patients with multiple sclerosis confirmed on MRI scans, and from eyes of 40 normal controls. For the mfVEP, the display was a pattern-reversal dartboard array, 48° in diameter, which contained 60 sectors. Monocular cVEPs were obtained using a checkerboard stimulus with check sizes of 15′ and 60′. For the cVEP, the latency of P100 for both check sizes were measured, while for the mfVEP, the mean latency, percent of locations with abnormal latency, and clusters of contiguous abnormal locations were obtained. Results For a specificity of 95%, the mfVEP(interocular cluster criterion) showed the highest sensitivity (89.5%) of the 5 monocular or interocular tests. Similarly, when a combined monocular/interocular criterion was employed, the mfVEP(cluster criterion) had the highest sensitivity (94.7%)/specificity (90%), missing only one patient. The combined monocular/interocular cVEP(60′) test had a sensitivity (84.2%)/specificity (90%), missing 3 patients, 2 more than did the monocular/interocular mfVEP(cluster) test. Conclusion As the cVEP is more readily available and currently a shorter test, it should be used to screen patients for ON/MS with mfVEP testing added when the cVEP test is negative and the damage is local.

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

[2]  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.

[3]  Donald C Hood,et al.  The multifocal visual evoked potential. , 2003, Journal of neuro-ophthalmology : the official journal of the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society.

[4]  D. Hood.  Electrophysiologic imaging of retinal and optic nerve damage: the multifocal technique. , 2004, Ophthalmology clinics of North America.

[5]  J. Swanson.  Multiple sclerosis: update in diagnosis and review of prognostic factors. , 1989, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[6]  A. James,et al.  Effect of temporal sparseness and dichoptic presentation on multifocal visual evoked potentials , 2005, Visual Neuroscience.

[7]  D. Hood,et al.  Improvement in conduction velocity after optic neuritis measured with the multifocal VEP. , 2007, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[8]  J. Corbett.  Experience of the optic neuritis treatment trial , 2004, Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports.

[9]  D WILLIAMS.  Modern Views on the Classification of Epilepsy* , 1958, British medical journal.

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

[11]  Rasa Ruseckaite,et al.  Sparse multifocal stimuli for the detection of multiple sclerosis , 2005, Annals of neurology.

[12]  W. Mcdonald,et al.  Visual Evoked Response in Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis , 1973, British medical journal.

[13]  J. Odom.  VISUAL EVOKED POTENTIALS STANDARD , 2004 .

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

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

[16]  S. Bloom,et al.  GASTROINTESTINAL MEDIATOR OF INSULIN ACTION , 1980, The Lancet.

[17]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Determining abnormal latencies of multifocal visual evoked potentials: a monocular analysis , 2004, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[18]  The clinical profile of optic neuritis. Experience of the Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial. Optic Neuritis Study Group. , 1991, Archives of ophthalmology.

[19]  V. Greenstein,et al.  A comparison between multifocal and conventional VEP latency changes secondary to glaucomatous damage. , 2006, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[20]  D. Hood,et al.  Tracking the recovery of local optic nerve function after optic neuritis: a multifocal VEP study. , 2000, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[21]  W. Mcdonald,et al.  Delayed visual evoked response in optic neuritis. , 1972, Lancet.

[22]  Vaegan,et al.  Visual evoked potentials standard (2004) , 2004, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[23]  Donald C. Hood,et al.  Determining abnormal interocular latencies of multifocal visual evoked potentials , 2004, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[24]  S Kangovi,et al.  An interocular comparison of the multifocal VEP: a possible technique for detecting local damage to the optic nerve. , 2000, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.