Documenta Ophthalmologica

, Volume 117, Issue 2, pp 121–128 | Cite as

A comparison of multifocal and conventional visual evoked potential techniques in patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis

  • Larissa K. Grover
  • Donald C. Hood
  • Quraish Ghadiali
  • Tomas M. Grippo
  • Adam S. Wenick
  • Vivienne C. Greenstein
  • Myles M. Behrens
  • Jeffrey G. Odel
Original Research Article

Abstract

Purpose To compare conventional visual evoked potential (cVEP) and multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) methods in patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis (ON/MS). Methods mfVEPs and cVEPs were obtained from eyes of the 19 patients with multiple sclerosis confirmed on MRI scans, and from eyes of 40 normal controls. For the mfVEP, the display was a pattern-reversal dartboard array, 48° in diameter, which contained 60 sectors. Monocular cVEPs were obtained using a checkerboard stimulus with check sizes of 15′ and 60′. For the cVEP, the latency of P100 for both check sizes were measured, while for the mfVEP, the mean latency, percent of locations with abnormal latency, and clusters of contiguous abnormal locations were obtained. Results For a specificity of 95%, the mfVEP(interocular cluster criterion) showed the highest sensitivity (89.5%) of the 5 monocular or interocular tests. Similarly, when a combined monocular/interocular criterion was employed, the mfVEP(cluster criterion) had the highest sensitivity (94.7%)/specificity (90%), missing only one patient. The combined monocular/interocular cVEP(60′) test had a sensitivity (84.2%)/specificity (90%), missing 3 patients, 2 more than did the monocular/interocular mfVEP(cluster) test. Conclusion As the cVEP is more readily available and currently a shorter test, it should be used to screen patients for ON/MS with mfVEP testing added when the cVEP test is negative and the damage is local.

Keywords

Multifocal visual evoked potential VEP Multiple sclerosis Optic neuritis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Institutes of Health, National Eye Institute Grants: RO1-EY02115 (DCH). Adam S. Wenick was funded by a fellowship from Fight for Sight, New York, NY, USA.

References

  1. 1.
    Swanson JW (1989) Multiple sclerosis: update in diagnosis and review of prognostic factors. Mayo Clin Proc 64:577–586PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Halliday AM, McDonald EI, Mushin J (1972) Delayed visual evoked response in optic neuritis. Lancet 1:661–664Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yang EB, Hood DC, Rodarte C, Zhang X, Odel JG, Behrens MM (2007) Improvement in conduction velocity after optic neuritis measured with the multifocal VEP. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48:692–698PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Optic Neuritis Study Group (1991) The clinical profile of optic neuritis. Experience of the optic neuritis treatment trial. Arch Ophthalmol 109:1673–1678Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Halliday AM, McDonald EI, Mushin J (1973) Visual evoked response in diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. BMJ 1:661–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hood DC, Odel JG, Winn BJ (2003) The multifocal visual evoked potential. J Neuro-Ophthalmol 23:279–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hood DC, Odel JG, Zhang X (2000) Tracking the recovery of local optic nerve function after optic neuritis: a multifocal VEP study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:4032–4038PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hood DC, Ohri N, Yang EB, Rodarte C, Zhang X, Fortune B, Johnson CA (2004) Determining abnormal latencies of multifocal visual evoked potentials: a monocular analysis. Doc Ophthalmol 109:189–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hood DC, Zhang X, Rodarte C, Yang EB, Ohri N, Fortune B, Johnson CA (2004) Determining abnormal interocular latencies of multifocal visual evoked potentials. Doc Ophthalmol 109:177–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fortune B, Hood DC (2003) Conventional pattern-reversal VEPs are not equivalent to summed multifocal VEPs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:1364–1375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fortune B, Goh K, Demirel S, Novitsky K, Mansberger SL, Johnson CA, Cioffi GA (2003) Detection of glaucomatous visual field loss using the multifocal visual evoked potential. In: Henson DB, Wall M (eds) Perimetry update 2002/2003; Proceedings of the XVth international perimetric society meeting. Kugler, The Hague, pp 251–260Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hood DC, Greenstein VC (2003) Multifocal VEP and ganglion cell damage: applications and limitations for the study of glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res 22:201–251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hood DC, Odel JG, Winn BJ (2003) The multifocal visual evoked potential. J Neuro-Ophthalmol 23:279–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    James AC (2003) The pattern-pulse multifocal visual evoked potential. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:879–890PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    James AC, Ruseckaite R, Maddess T (2005) Effect of temporal sparseness and dichoptic presentation on multifocal visual evoked potentials. Vis Neurosci 22:45–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ruseckaite R, Maddess T, Danta G, Lueck CJ, James AC (2005) Sparse multifocal stimuli for the detection of multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 57:904–913PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Odom JV, Bach M, Barber C et al (2004) Visual evoked potentials standard. Doc Ophthalmol 108:115–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baseler HA, Sutter EE, Klein SA, Carney T (1998) The topographic visual evoked potential: improving objective detection of local visual field defects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 39:937–950Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hood DC, Zhang X, Greenstein VC, Kangovi S, Odel JG, Liebmann JM, Ritch R (2000) An interocular comparison of the multifocal VEP: a possible technique for detecting local damage to the optic nerve. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:1580–1587PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hood DC, Zhang X, Hong JE, Chen CS (2002) Quantifying the benefits of additional channels of multifocal VEP recording. Doc Ophthalmol 104:303–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hood DC (2004) Electrophysiologic imaging of retinal and optic nerve damage: the multifocal technique. Ophthalmol Clin N Am 1:69–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grippo TM, Hood DC, Kanadani FN, Ezon I, Greenstein VC, Liebmann JM, Ritch R (2006) A comparison between multifocal and conventional VEP latency changes secondary to glaucomatous damage. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:5331–5336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Larissa K. Grover
    • 1
  • Donald C. Hood
    • 1
    • 2
  • Quraish Ghadiali
    • 1
  • Tomas M. Grippo
    • 3
  • Adam S. Wenick
    • 2
  • Vivienne C. Greenstein
    • 2
  • Myles M. Behrens
    • 2
  • Jeffrey G. Odel
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of OphthalmologyColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Einhorn Clinical Research CenterNew York Eye and Ear InfirmaryNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations