A comparison of multifocal and conventional visual evoked potential techniques in patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis
- 170 Downloads
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.
KeywordsMultifocal visual evoked potential VEP Multiple sclerosis Optic neuritis
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.
- 2.Halliday AM, McDonald EI, Mushin J (1972) Delayed visual evoked response in optic neuritis. Lancet 1:661–664Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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