Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 82–88 | Cite as

Visual evoked potentials due to structured stimuli in children with cataracts

  • L. I. Fil'chlkova
  • V. V. Zheludkova
  • L. A. Novikova
  • A. V. Khvatova
Article
Received:
  • 10 Downloads

Conclusions

  1. 1.

    A study of 7-year-old children having normal vision has revealed an increase in the peculiarity of the EP resulting from checkerboard figures: a fusion of the P120 and P200 components, as well as a reduction of the N150 component. Under conditions of dark adaptation, during stimulation of central and paracentral regions of the retina (area of stimulation 18°) a relationship has been found between the amplitude of the P160 component and the size of the checkerboard cells. Maximal amplitudes were recorded for this component with stimuli having a cell size of 48′.

     
  2. 2.

    In 5–8-year-old children with congenital cataracts, changes have been observed in the configuration and amplitude-temporal parameters of the EP, as compared to a control group of visually normal children of the same age: Some decrease has been noted in the amplitude of the majority of the EP components (an acute drop in the amplitude of the P160 component) and a significant increase in the amplitude of the N150 component. The P160 component has not proven to be sensitive to the size of the checkerboard cells.

     
  3. 3.

    With traumatic cataracts originating in the fifth or sixth years of life, and with the deprivation period lasting from one to seven years, all components are present in the complex of waves in the EP resulting from light flash: There is no reduction in the P160 component characteristic of congenital cataracts.

     
  4. 4.

    It is hypothesized that the P160 component in the EP of 7-year-old children reflects activity of cortical neuronal elements involved in the analysis of complex, structured properties of a stimulus. The reduction of this component and the loss of its sensitivity to the cell size of a checkerboard field in children having congenital cataracts is related to a weakening of excitatory-inhibitory interactions among the cortical neuronal elements which participate in these processes.

     
  5. 5.

    A comparison of EP with visual deprivations originating at different ages (inborn and traumatic cataracts) indicates that disturbance of pattern perception in the sensitive period encompassing the first years of life of the child leads to morphofunctional changes in the highly-specialized cortical neural elements which participate in the analysis of the complex structured properties of a stimulus.

     

Keywords

Cataract Dark Adaptation P160 Component N150 Component Light Flash 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. 1.
    É. S. Avetisov, S. A. Barkhash, N. I. Pil'man, and A. V. Khvatova, Materials from the IV Congress of Ophthalmologists of the USSR [in Russian], Part II, Moscow (1973), p. 395.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. G. Beteleva, N. V. Dubrovinskaya, and D. A. Farber, Sensory Mechanisms of the Developing Brain [in Russian], Nauka, Moscow (1977).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. S. Gorev, “Electrophysiological analysis of the systemic organization of visual perception in the course of individual development,” Author's Abstract of Doctoral Dissertation, Sci. Res. Inst. Physiol. of Children and Teenagers, Acad. Pedagog. Sci. of the USSR, Moscow (1977).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    N. N. Zislina, and V. A. Tolstova, Zh. Vyssh. Nervn. Deyat.,29, No. 5, 993 (1979).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. M. Ivanitskii, Brain Mechanisms of Signal Evaluation [in Russian], Meditsina, Moscow (1976).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    N. A. Koval'chik, 6th Scientific Conference on Defectology [in Russian], Proceedings Reports, Moscow (1971).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. F. Lomov and A. M. Ivanitskii, Fiz. Cheloveka,3, No. 6, 951 (1977).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    L. A. Novikova and L. I. Fil'chikova, Zh. Vyssh. Nervn. Deyat.,26, No. 6, 1244 (1976).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    L. A. Novikova and L. I. Fil'chikova, Zh. Vyssh. Nervn. Deyat.,27, No. 1, 98 (1977).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. A. Tolstova, “Visual evoked potentials in persons with normal and disturbed vision, during perception of colored stimuli of various intensities,” Author's Abstracts of Doctoral Dissertation, Inst. Higher Nerv. Act. and Neurophysiol., Moscow (1977).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. G. Uzbekov, Zh. Vyssh. Nervn. Deyat.,26, No. 6, 1291 (1975).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    L. I. Fil'chikova, “The study of normal and pathological contrast perception by means of recording evoked potentials,” Author's Abstract of Doctoral Dissertation, Scientific Res. Inst. of Defectology, Acad. Pedagog. Sci. of the USSR, Moscow (1974).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. M. Frid, “Electrophysiological analysis of the perception of visual signals during the orienting response and directed attention in school-age children,” Author's Abstract of Doctoral Dissertation, Scientific Res. Inst. of the Physiol. of Children and Teenagers, Acad. Pedagog. Sci. of the USSR, Moscow (1972).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    I. A. Shevelev, N. N. Verderevskaya, and V. G. Marchenko, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR,217, No. 2, 493 (1974).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    I. A. Shevelev, N. N. Verderevskaya, V. G. Marchenko, and I. V. Maksimova, Zh. Vyssh. Nervn. Deyat.,27, No. 6, 1159 (1977).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G. B. Arden, W. M. Barnard, and A. S. Mushin, Br. J. Ophthalmol.,58, No. 3, 183 (1974).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. Blakemore and R. J. Sluyters, Physiol. (Engl.),237, No. 2, 195 (1974).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. Demaire and J. M. Coquery, Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol.,42, No. 5, 702 (1977).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. R. Dürstler, J. A. Movshon, and L. J. Sarey, Exp. Brain Res., Suppl. 63, 23 (1977).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    L. J. Garey, Proc. Int. Union Physiol. Sci. 27th Int. Congr. Paris, 1977, Vol. 12, Paris (1977), p. 634.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    H. Ikeda and M. J. Wright, Br. J. Ophthalmol.,58, No. 3, 165 (1974).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    C. T. Lombroso, F. H. Duffi, and R. M. Robb, Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol.,27, No. 2, 238 (1969).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. A. Movshon, J. Physiol. (Engl.),261, No. 1, 125 (1976).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    G. K. Noorden, Br. J. Ophthalmol.,58, No. 3, 158 (1974).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    G. K. Noorden and M. L. Crawford, J. Brain Res.,129, No. 1, 37 (1977).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    T. N. Wiesel and D. H. Hubel, J. Neurophysiol.,28, No. 6, 1029 (1965).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    T. N. Wiesel, D. H. Hubel, and S. Le-Vay, Proc. Int. Union Physiol. Sci. 27th Int. Congr. Paris, 1977, Vol. 12, Paris (1977), p. 638.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    U. Yinon, L. Jakobovitz, and E. Auerbach, Invest. Ophthalmol.,13, No. 4, 293 (1974).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. I. Fil'chlkova
    • 1
    • 2
  • V. V. Zheludkova
    • 1
    • 2
  • L. A. Novikova
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. V. Khvatova
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratory of Neurophysiology, Institute for Defectology ResearchAcademy of Pedagogical Sciences of the USSRUSSR
  2. 2.Department of Pathology of the Visual Organs of ChildrenHelmholtz Institute for Research in Eye DiseasesUSSR

Personalised recommendations