Correlation between full-field and multifocal VEPs in optic neuritis

Aim To compare performance of multi-focal and full-field Visual Evoked Potentials (VEP) in patients with optic neuritis (ON). Method 26 patients with unilateral ON were enrolled. Multi-focal VEP (MF VEP) was recorded using AccuMap™ system. Four bipolar channels were analysed. Full-field VEP (FF VEP) was performed according to ISCEV standard using ESPION™ with frontal-occipital electrode placement. Pattern-reversal protocol was implemented with check size of 60′ and field of view of 30°. Result For both tests amplitude and latency of affected eye were statistically different from non-affected eye. The asymmetry of amplitude and latency between two eyes was also very similar for both tests. Averaged Relative Asymmetry Coefficient of amplitude (RAC) for the FF VEP was 0.10 ± 0.15 and for the MF VEP was 0.12 ± 0.12 (P = 0.21, paired t-test). Averaged latency difference between affected and non-affected eyes was 13.0 ± 12 ms for FF and 14.1 ± 11.1 ms for MF VEPs (P = 0.14, paired t-test). Coefficient of correlation (r) of p100 component of the FF VEP and averaged MF VEP was 0.60 (P < 0.0001) for amplitude and 0.79 (P < 0.0001) for latency. Correlation improved when amplitude and latency asymmetry between two eyes was analysed (r = 0.81 and r = 0.92 respectively). Overall 73% of affected eyes were identified as abnormal by amplitude and/or latency of the FF VEP and 89% was considered abnormal when MF VEP was used. Analysis of individual cases revealed superior performance of MF VEP in detecting small or peripheral defects.

[1]  Ivan Goldberg,et al.  Clinical application of objective perimetry using multifocal visual evoked potentials in glaucoma practice. , 2005, Archives of ophthalmology.

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

[3]  S. Graham,et al.  Intertest Variability of mfVEP Amplitude: Reducing its Effect on the Interpretation of Sequential Tests , 2005, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

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

[5]  H. Spekreijse,et al.  Standard for Visual Evoked Potentials 1995 , 1996, Vision Research.

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

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

[8]  L. Kurland,et al.  Optic neuritis , 1995, Neurology.

[9]  D Ristanović,et al.  Effects of spatially structured stimulus fields on pattern reversal visual evoked potentials. , 1981, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

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

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

[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]  C. Yiannikas,et al.  The variation of the pattern shift visual evoked response with the size of the stimulus field. , 1983, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[14]  Donald M. MacKay,et al.  Visually Evoked Potentials and Visual Perception in Man , 1973 .

[15]  G. Barrett,et al.  The Macular and Paramacular Subcomponents of the Pattern Evoked Response , 1979 .

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

[17]  Steve J Jones,et al.  Neurophysiological evidence for long-term repair of MS lesions: implications for axon protection , 2003, Journal of the Neurological Sciences.

[18]  M. Sanders.  Handbook of Sensory Physiology , 1975 .

[19]  E. Basar,et al.  Enhancement of visual evoked potentials by stimulation during low prestimulus EEG stages. , 1993, The International journal of neuroscience.

[20]  G. Ebers,et al.  Optic Neuritis and Multiple Sclerosis , 1983, Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques.

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

[22]  V. Torri,et al.  Long-term follow-up of isolated optic neuritis: the risk of developing multiple sclerosis, its outcome, and the prognostic role of paraclinical tests , 1999, Journal of Neurology.

[23]  D. Whitteridge,et al.  The representation of the visual field on the cerebral cortex in monkeys , 1961, The Journal of physiology.

[24]  S L Graham,et al.  The diagnostic significance of the multifocal pattern visual evoked potential in glaucoma. , 1999, Current opinion in ophthalmology.

[25]  Dietrich Lehmann,et al.  Human Evoked Potentials , 1979 .

[26]  H Spekreijse,et al.  Contrast evoked responses in man. , 1973, Vision research.

[27]  Stuart L. Graham,et al.  Effect of stimulus check size on multifocal visual evoked potentials , 2003, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[28]  M. R. Harter,et al.  Evoked cortical responses to checkerboard patterns: effect of check-size as a function of retinal eccentricity. , 1970, Vision research.

[29]  L. Palmer,et al.  The retinotopic organization of area 17 (striate cortex) in the cat , 1978, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[30]  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.

[31]  Alexander Klistorner,et al.  Multifocal visual evoked potential latency analysis: predicting progression to multiple sclerosis. , 2006, Archives of neurology.

[32]  C. Yiannikas,et al.  Variability on serial testing of pattern reversal visual evoked potential latencies from full-field, half-field and foveal stimulation in control subjects. , 1987, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[33]  M. Brandt,et al.  The relationship between prestimulus-alpha amplitude and visual evoked potential amplitude. , 1991, The International journal of neuroscience.

[34]  L. Riggs,et al.  Electrical Measures and Psychophysical Data on Human Vision , 1972 .

[35]  B E Kendall,et al.  The pathophysiology of acute optic neuritis. An association of gadolinium leakage with clinical and electrophysiological deficits. , 1991, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[36]  S. Graham,et al.  Multifocal objective perimetry in the detection of glaucomatous field loss. , 2002, American journal of ophthalmology.

[37]  S L Graham,et al.  Objective VEP Perimetry in Glaucoma: Asymmetry Analysis to Identify Early Deficits , 2000, Journal of glaucoma.

[38]  G. Celesia,et al.  Pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials and retinal eccentricity. , 1982, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

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

[40]  S. Graham,et al.  Multifocal visual evoked potential analysis of inflammatory or demyelinating optic neuritis. , 2006, Ophthalmology.

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

[42]  M Schürmann,et al.  Spontaneous EEG theta activity controls frontal visual evoked potential amplitudes. , 1998, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.