Within-session reproducibility of motion-onset VEPs: Effect of adaptation/habituation or fatigue on N2 peak amplitude and latency
- 97 Downloads
We explored the effect of repeated visual stimulation on motion-onset visual evoked potentials (M-VEPs) during 25 min recording sessions in 10 subjects. The aim of the experiment was to determine influence of global motion adaptation (without motion-aftereffect) on intra-individual variability of M-VEPs and to suggest an optimal recording design for clinical examination. In addition to well described middle-time sensory adaptation, we also observed a long-time effect on motion specific N2 peak (155 ms). The N2 peak exhibited a strong relationship between its latency and inter-peak amplitude to the duration of recording in occipito-parietal derivations. In addition to the middle-term adaptation, N2 peak latency was prolonged by 10 ms and amplitude was attenuated by 30% with respect to the start of the experiment. An exponential model was employed to describe the dependency. The model can be used to reduce intra-individual variability during examination. Observed resemblance between the measured electrophysiological values and already published metabolic changes (glucose and oxygen utilization) during brain processing of visual information is discussed.
KeywordsAdaptation Habituation Fatigue Motion-onset VEPs Intra-individual variability
Supported by Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic (VZ 0021620816 and VZ 0021620820).
- 9.Priebe N, Churchland M, Lisberg S (2002) Constrains on source of short-term motion adaptation in macaque area MT. I. The role of input and intrinsic mechanisms. J Neurphysiol 88:354–369Google Scholar
- 10.Hoffmann M, Dorn TJ, Bach M (1999) Time course of motion adaptation: motion-onset visual evoked potentials and subjective estimates. Vision Res 39:437–44. Erratum in: Vision Res (1999)39:2794Google Scholar
- 11.World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinky (2004) Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Available via http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htmGoogle Scholar
- 13.Odom JV, De Smedt E, Van Malderen L, Spileers W (1998–99) Visually evoked potentials evoked by moving unidimensional noise stimuli: effects of contrast, spatial frequency, active electrode location, reference electrode location, and stimulus type. Doc Ophthalmol 95:315–333Google Scholar
- 16.Muller R, Gopfert E, Breuer D, Greenlee MW (1998–1999). Motion VEPs with simultaneous measurement of perceived velocity. Doc Ophthalmol 97:121–134Google Scholar
- 28.Kremláček J, Kuba M, Kubová Z (1998) Electrophysiological manifestation of first-order motion perception. Perception 27 ECVP Abstract Supplement:192–193Google Scholar