Skip to main content
Log in

The topographic distribution of the magnetic P100M to full- and half-field stimulation

  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Visual evoked magnetic responses were recorded to full-field and left and right half-field stimulation with three check sizes (70′, 34′ and 22′) in five normal subjects. Recordings were made sequentially on a 20-position grid (4 × 5) based on the inion, by means of a single-channel direct current-Superconducting Quantum Interference Device second-order gradiometer. The topographic maps were consistent on the same subjects recorded 2 months apart. The half-field responses produced the strongest signals in the contralateral hemisphere and were consistent with the cruciform model of the calcarine fissure. Right half fields produced upper-left-quadrant outgoing fields and lower-left-quadrant ingoing fields, while the left half field produced the opposite response. The topographic maps also varied with check size, with the larger checks producing positive or negative maximum position more anteriorly than small checks. In addition, with large checks the full-field responses could be explained as the summation of the two half fields, whereas full-field responses to smaller checks were more unpredictable and may be due to sources located at the occipital pole or lateral surface. In addition, dipole sources were located as appropriate with the use of inverse problem solutions. Topographic data will be vital to the clinical use of the visual evoked field but, in addition, provides complementary information to visual evoked potentials, allowing detailed studies of the visual cortex.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Halliday AM, Barrett G, Halliday E, Michael WF. The topography of the pattern-evoked potential. In: Desmedt JE, ed. Visual evoked potentials in man. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977: 121–33.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barrett G, Blumhardt L, Halliday AM, Halliday E, Kriss A. A paradox in the lateralisation of the visual evoked response. Nature 1976; 261: 253–5.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Harding GFA, Smith GS, Smith PA. The effect of various stimulus parameters on the lateralisation of the visual evoked potential. In: Barber C, ed. Evoked potentials. Lancaster, England: MTP Press Ltd., 1980: 213–8.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Meredith JT, Celesia GG. Pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials and retinal eccentricity. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1982; 53: 243–53.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Spalding JMK. Wounds of the visual pathway, Part II: The striate cortex. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1952; 15: 169–83.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brecelj J, Cunningham K. Occipital distribution of foveal half-field responses. Doc Ophthalmol 1985; 59: 157–65.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lehmann D, Dorcey TM, Skrandies W. Intracerebral and scalp fields evoked by hemiretinal checkerboard reversal and modelling of their dipole generators. In: Courjon J, Mauguière F, Revol M, eds. Clinical applications of evoked potentials in neurology. New York: Raven Press, 1982: 41–8.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Flanagan JG, Harding GFA. Source derivation of the visual evoked potential. Doc Ophthalmol 1986; 62: 97–105.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Wikswo JP. Biomagnetic sources and their models. In: Williamson SJ, Hoke M, Stroink G, Kotani M, eds. Advances in biomagnetism. New York: Plenum Press, 1989: 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cohen D, Cuffin BN. Demonstration of useful differences between MEG and EEG. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1983; 56: 38–51.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Teyler TJ, Cuffin BN, Cohen D. The visual evoked magnetoencephalogram. Life Sci. 1975; 17: 683–92.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Brenner D, Williamson SJ, Kaufman L. Visually evoked magnetic fields of the human brain. Science 1975; 190: 480–1.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Stok CJ. The inverse problem in EEG and MEG with application to visual evoked responses [PhD thesis] Leiden University, 1986.

  14. Richer F, Barth DS, Beatty J. Neuromagnetic localisation of two components of the transient visual evoked response to patterned stimulation. Nuovo Cimento 1983; 2d(2): 421–8.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Janday BS, Swithenby SJ, Thomas IM. Combined magnetic field and electrical potential investigation of the visual pattern reversal system. In: Kotani M, Katila T, Williamson SJ, Ueno S, eds. Biomagnetism. Tokyo: Denkai Press, 1989: 246–9.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Melcher JR, Cohen D. Dependence of the magnetoencephalogram on dipole orientation in the rabbit head. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1988; 70: 460–72.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Armstrong RA, Harding GFA, Slaven A, Furlong P, Janday B. Normative MEG data to flash and pattern reversal stimuli. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1990; 75: 1–3P.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Janday BS. Biomagnetic field measurements and their interpretation using the dipole in a sphere model [PhD thesis] Open University, Milton Keynes, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Janday BS, Swithenby SJ. The use of the symmetric sphere model in magnetoence-phalographic analysis. In: Erne SN, Romani GL, eds. Advances in biomagnetic functional localisation. A challenge for biomagnetism. Singapore: World Scientific, 1989: 153–60.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Novak GP, Wiznitzer M, Kurtzberg D, Gresser BS, Vaughan HG. The utility of visual evoked potentials using hemifield stimulation and several check sizes in the evaluation of suspected multiple sclerosis. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1988; 71: 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Steinmetz H, Fürst G, Meyer B. Craniocerebral topography within the international 10–20 system. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1989; 72: 499–506.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Okada Y. Neurogenesis of evoked magnetic fields. In: Williams SJ, Romane G, Kaufman L, Modena I, eds. Biomagnetism. An interdisciplinary approach. New York: Plenum Press, 1983: 399–408.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Haimovic IC, Pedley TA. Hemifield pattern reversal visual evoked potential. II. Lesions of the chiasm and posterior visual pathways. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1982; 54: 121–31.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ducati A, Fava E, Motti EDF. Neuronal generators of the visual evoked potentials. Intracerebral recording in awake humans. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1988; 71: 89–99.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Strude M, Prevec TS, Zidar I. Dependence of visual evoked potentials on change of stimulated retinal area associated with different pattern displacements. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1982; 53: 634–42.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Adachi-Usami E, Lehmann D. Monocular and binocular averaged potential field topography. Upper and lower hemiretinal stimuli. Exp Brain Res 1983; 50: 341–6.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Butler SR, Georgiou GA, Glass A, Hancox RJ, Hoper JM, Smith KRH. Cortical generations of the C1 component of the pattern-onset visual evoked potential. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1987; 68: 256–67.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ossenblok P, Spekreijse H. The extrastriate generators of the EP to checkerboard onset. A source localization approach. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1991; 80: 181–93.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harding, G., Janday, B. & Armstrong, R. The topographic distribution of the magnetic P100M to full- and half-field stimulation. Doc Ophthalmol 80, 63–73 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00161232

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00161232

Key words

Navigation