Assessment of the Visual Evoked Response Parameters in Different Hemi Fields in Normal Subjects

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 ِDepartment of Optometry, school of Rehabilitation, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of optometry, school of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

3 Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Purpose:
Visual Evoked Potential is an objective method to assess the visual function. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the visual evoked responses in different hemi fields of vision in normal individuals.
Methods:
The study included 80 eyes of normal subjects aged 18-38 years. All participants were underwent detailed examination including refraction and visual acuity. Pattern reversal VEP responses were recorded in different hemi­ fields. Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (SPSS statistical software, Version 20) was used to compare responses recorded in different hemi fields, amplitude and latency of VEP.
Results:
The averages of maximum and minimum value of P100 amplitude were found in the temporal and inferior retinas, respectively. Moreover, lowest latency was observed in the superior retina and greatest latency was in the nasal retina. The results showed a significant difference in P100 amplitude and latency between different hemi fields.
Conclusions:
This study revealed the details of local VEP distribution in the visual field and there was a significant difference in the amplitude and latency of the VEP wave in different hemi fields of vision. In our study, the most visual sensitivity (lowest latency and maximum amplitude) is in the superior and temporal retinas, which has the lowest latency and the highest amplitude, respectively. Superior and temporal areas of the retina seem to have a better response in the PVEP test.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Heckenlively, J.R. and G.B. Arden, Principles and practice of clinical electrophysiology of vision 2006: 47-49.
  2. Levin LA, Nilsson SF, Ver Hoeve J, Wu S, Kaufman PL, Alm A. Adler's Physiology of the Eye. Elsevier Health Sciences 2003; Edit (10): 323- 330.
  3. Curcio, Christine A., and Kimberly A. Allen , et al. Topography of ganglion cells in human retina. J. Comp. Neurol  1990; (300): 5-25.     
  4. Hood, Donald C., Vivienne C. Greenstein, et al. "Visual field defects and multifocal visual evoked potentials." Archives of Ophthalmology 2002; 120 (12): 1672-1681.
  5. Asakawa K, Shoji N, Ishikawa H, Shimizu ,et al. New approach  for  the  glaucoma  detection  with   pupil perimetry. Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, NZ) 2010; 4: 617-623.
  6. Sample PA, Bosworth CF, Blumenthal EZ, Girkin C,et al. Visual function–specific perimetry for indirect comparison of different ganglion cell populations in glaucoma. ophthalmology & visual science 2000; 41(7): 1783-1790.
  7. Graham, Stuart L., Alexander Klistorner, John R, et al. "Objective perimetry in glaucoma: recent advances with multifocal stimuli. Survey of ophthalmology. 1999 ; 43: 199-209.
  8. Klistorner, A. and S.L. Graham, Objective perimetry in glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2000. 107(12): 2283-2299.
  9.  Jampel HD, Singh K, Lin SC, Chen TC,et al.. Assessment of visual function in glaucoma: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2011; 118(5): 986-1002.
  10. Goldberg, I., S.L. Graham, and A.I. Klistorner, Multifocal objective perimetry in the detection of glaucomatous field loss. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2002; 133(1): 29-39.
  11. Alexander Klistorner, Staurt L Graham. Objective perimetry in glaucoma. American Academy Of Ophtalmology 2000; 107(12); 2283-2299.
  12. Hood, D.C. and V.C. Greenstein, Multifocal VEP and ganglion cell damage: applications and limitations for the study of glaucoma. Progress in retinal and eye research 2003; 22(2): 201-251.
  13. Klistorner AI, Graham SL, Grigg J, Balachandran C. Objective perimetry using the multifocal visual evoked potential in central visual pathway lesions. British journal of ophthalmology 2005; 89(6): 739-44.
  14. Brigell M, Bach M, Barber C, Moskowitz A, et al. Guidelines for calibration of stimulus and recording parameters used in clinical electrophysiology of vision. Documenta ophthalmologica 2003; 107(2): 185-93.
  15. Kothari R, Singh S, Singh R, Shukla A, et al. Influence of visual angle on pattern reversal visual evoked potentials. Oman journal of ophthalmology. 2014; 7(3): 120-5.
  16. Yu, M.-Z. and B. Brown, Variation of topographic visually evoked potentials across the visual field. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 1997; 17(1): 25-31.
  17. Odom JV, Bach M, Brigell M, Holder G, McCulloch D, Tormene A, et al. ISCEV standard for clinical visual evoked potentials (update 2009 ). Documenta Ophthalmologica. 2010;120 (1): 9-111.
  18. Croner, L.J. and E. Kaplan, Receptive fields of P and M ganglion cells across the primate retina. Vision research 1995; 35(1): 7-24.
  19. Silveira, L. and V. Perry, The topography of magnocellular projecting ganglion cells (M-ganglion cells) in the primate retina. Neuroscience, 1991; 40(1): 217-237.
  20. DeYoe EA, Carman GJ, Bandettini P, Glickman S,et al. Mapping striate and extrastriate visual areas in human cerebral cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1996; 93(6): 2382-6.
  21. Horton, J.C. and W.F. Hoyt, The representation of the visual field in human striate cortex. Archives of ophthalmology 1991; 109(6): 816-824.
  22. Holliday, A. M. and Micheal, W. F. Pattern evoked responses in man associated with the vertical and horizontal meridians of the visual field. J. Physiol 1970; 208(2): 499-513.
  23. Skrandies, W., Brain mapping of visual evoked activity-topographical and functional components. Acta Neurologica Taiwanica 2005; 14(4): 164-168.
  24. Kanamori A, Naka M, Nagai-Kusuhara A, Yamada Y,et al. Regional relationship between retinal nerve fiber layer thickness and corresponding visual field sensitivity in glaucomatous eyes. Archives of ophthalmology 2008; 126(11): 1500-6. 

Journal of Paramedical Sciences & Rehabilitation
Volume 7, Issue 1
February 2018
Pages 40-46

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics