The effect of fixation instability on the multifocal VEP
- 69 Downloads
- 6 Citations
Abstract
In multifocal visually evoked potentials (mfVEP), we find reversals in waveform near the horizontal meridian due to convolutions in the cortex. This renders the mfVEP very sensitive to small changes in gaze position. In this study we tested the effects of very small amounts of fixation instability on the mfVEP topography under controlled conditions using four normal subjects. In order to simulate unstable fixation, subjects were instructed to move their fixation point systematically in a clockwise direction between the endpoints of a fixation cross every few seconds (two degree diameter cross=one degree fixation error). Results were compared against a control condition with stable, central fixation. The effects of 0.5° fixation error are small, but 1.0° fixation error can produce a large decrease in root mean square signal amplitude (e.g., 60%) in the central foveal region (i.e., within 1.4° eccentricity). The size of the effect drops off rapidly with eccentricity and varies greatly between areas within a subject, and between the four subjects. Beyond 3.0° eccentricity the effects are minimal. Unstable fixation with relatively small fixation errors caused a dramatic decrease in mfVEP amplitude within three degrees of eccentricity, which can be misinterpreted as loss of macular function. Fixation monitoring is essential to obtain accurate results in the macular area when recording mfVEPs.
Keywords
clinical physiology eye movements fixation multifocal VEP visual evoked potentialPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Baseler, HA, Sutter, EE, Klein, SA, Carney, T 1994The topography of visual evoked response properties across the visual field.Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol906581CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Baseler, HA, Sutter, EE 1997M and P components of the VEP and their visual field contribution.Vision Res37675790Google Scholar
- Graham, SL, Klistorner, AI, Grogg, JR, Billson, FA 2000Objective VEP perimetry in glaucoma: asymmetry analysis to identify early deficits.J Glaucoma.9109Google Scholar
- Betsuin, Y, Mashima, Y, Ohde, H, Inoue, R, Oguchi, Y 2001Clinical application of the multifocal VEPs.Curr Eye Res225463Google Scholar
- Klistorner, AI, Graham, SL, Grigg, JR, Billson, FA 1998Multifocal topographic visual evoked potential: improving objective detection of local visual field defects.Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci3993750Google Scholar
- Horten, JC, Hoyt, WF 1991The representation of the visual field in human striate cortex.Arch Ophthalmol10981624Google Scholar
- Sutter, EE 1992Deterministic approach to nonlinear systems analysis.Pinter, RBNabet, B eds. Nonlinear vision.CRC PressBoca Raton171220Google Scholar
- Seiple, W, Clemens, C, Greenstein, VC, Holopigian, K, Zhang, X 2002The spatial distribution of selective attention assessed using the multifocal visual evoked potential.Vision Res42151321Google Scholar
- Winn BJ, Shin EH, Greenstein VC, Odel JG, Hood DC. Interpreting the multifocal visual evoked potential (mNEP): the influence of cataracts, refraction and fixation. Annual Meeting Abstract and Program Planner [on CD_ROM and at www.arvo.org]. Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology. 2003; abstract nr. 32.Google Scholar
- Hood, DC, Greenstein, VC 2002The multifocal VEP and ganglion cell damage: applications and limitations for the study of glaucoma.Prog Ret Eye Res2220151Google Scholar
- Hoshiyama, M, Kakigi, R 2001Effects of attention on pattern–reversal visual evoked potentials: foveal field stimulation versus peripheral field stimulation.Brain Topogr132938Google Scholar
- Slotnick, SD, Hopfinger, JB, Klein, SA, Sutter, EE 2002Darkness beyond the light: attentional inhibition surrounding the classic spotlight.Neuroreport137738Google Scholar
- Morista, M, Yagi, T 2001The stability of human eye orientation during visual fixation and imagined fixation in three dimensions.Auris Nasus Larynx.283014Google Scholar