Correlation between full-field and multifocal VEPs in optic neuritis
- 325 Downloads
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.
KeywordsMulti-focal VEP Full-field VEP Optic neuritis
Dr A. Klistorner is Sydney Medical Foundation Senior Research Fellow. Study was supported by ORIA grant.
- 8.Riggs LA, Wooten BR (1972) Electrical measures and psychophysical data on human vision. In: Jamison D, Hurvich LM (ed) Handbook of sensory physiology, vol 7/4. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 690–731Google Scholar
- 9.MacKay DM, Jeffreys DA (1973) Visual evoked potentials and visual perception in man. In: Jung R (ed) Handbook of sensory physiology, vol 11. Springer, Berlin, pp 647–656Google Scholar
- 10.Spekreijse H, van der Tweel LH, Zuidma T (1973) Contrast evoked response in man. Vision Res 35:153–163Google Scholar
- 11.ONTT Group (1991) The clinical profile of optic neuritis: experience of the optic neuritis treatment trial. Arch Ophthalmol 109:1673–1678Google Scholar
- 12.Halliday AM, Darbett G, Blumhardt LD, Kriss A (1979) The macular and submacular subcomponents of the attern evoked response. In: Lehman D, Callaway E (eds) Human evoked potentials. Plenum Publishing, New York, pp 135–151Google Scholar
- 19.Fraser C, Klistorner A, Graham SL et al (2006) Multifocal visual evoked potential analysis of inflammatory or demyelinating optic neuritis. Ophthalmol 107:2283–2299Google Scholar
- 21.Barber C (1998) The multifocal ERG and VEP. In: Stalberg E, de Weerd A, Zidar J (eds) Proc North Eur Congr Clin Neurophysiol, Bologna, pp 209–216Google Scholar
- 22.Barber C, Wen Y (2000) The multi-focal visual evoked potential can be used to dissect the standard VEP[ARVO abstract]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:S334Google Scholar
- 23.Fortune B, Hood DC (2003) Conventional pattern-reversal VEPs are not equivalent to summed multifocal VEPs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:1367–1375Google Scholar