Skip to main content

Effects of sweep VEP parameters on visual acuity and contrast thresholds in children and adults

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology volume 249, pages 613–623 (2011)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

There are many parameters that may impact the thresholds obtained with sweep visually evoked potentials (sVEP), yet a number of these parameters have not been systematically studied, and there is no recognised standard for sVEP recording. In this study, the effects of electrode placement, temporal frequency, sweep direction, presence of a fixation target, stimulus area, and sweep duration on visual acuity (VA) and contrast thresholds of the sVEP were investigated. Additionally, the effect of these parameters on the number of viable threshold readings obtained from five active electrodes was investigated.

Methods

Participants were six children (aged 6-8 years) and six adults (aged 17-30 years) with normal vision. Binocular sVEP VA and contrast thresholds were measured for two electrode placements (ISCEV and PowerDiva) of five active electrodes, three temporal frequencies (6, 7.5, and 10 Hz), two sweep directions (low to high and high to low), presence or absence of a fixation target, three stimulus areas, and three sweep durations.

Results

There were differences between adults and children with respect to visual acuity, the adults having better VA than the children (p = 0.033 in experiment 2). Overall, there were more viable readings at 7.5 Hz than at either 10 or 6 Hz (p = 0.0014 for VA and 0.001 for contrast thresholds). The adults performed better (in terms of viable readings) with the fixation target than without it (p = 0.04). The smallest stimulus size used gave rise to fewer viable readings in both adults and children (p = 0.022 for VA and 0.0001 for contrast thresholds). The other parameters (electrode placement, sweep direction and sweep duration) did not give rise to significant differences.

Conclusions

A temporal frequency of 7.5 Hz, a stimulus area of 4° or larger for VA and 10° or larger for contrast thresholds, and the use of a fixation target gave more viable readings, and may be indicated for future application. Consideration of the number of viable readings showed more differences between parameters than the actual thresholds, and it is suggested that more readings presumably would yield more reliable threshold measurements.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

References

  1. Almoqbel F, Leat SJ, Irving E (2008) The technique, validity, and clinical use of the sweep VEP. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 28:393–403

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Odom JV, Bach M, Brigell M, Holder GE, McCulloch DL, Tormene AP, Vaegan (2010) ISCEV standard for clinical visual evoked potentials (2009 update). Doc Ophthalmol 120:111–119

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Good WV, Hou C (2006) Sweep visual evoked potential grating acuity thresholds paradoxically improve in low-luminance conditions in children with cortical visual impairment. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:3220–3224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arai M, Katsumi O, Paranhos FRL, Lopes de Faria JM, Hirose T (1997) Comparison of Snellen acuity and objective assessment using the spatial frequency sweep PVER. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 235:442–447

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. John FM, Bromham NR, Woodhouse JM, Candy TR (2004) Spatial vision deficits in infants and children with Down syndrome. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:1566–1572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Peterzell DH, Kelly JP (1997) Development of spatial frequency tuned "covariance" channels: individual differences in the electrophysiological (VEP) contrast sensitivity function. Optom Vis Sci 74:800–807

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Prager TC, Zou YL, Jensen CL, Fraley JK, Anderson RE, Heird WC (1999) Evaluation of methods for assessing visual function of infants. J AAPOS 3:275–282

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Riddell PM, Ladenheim B, Mast J, Catalano T, Nobile R, Hainline L (1997) Comparison of measures of visual acuity in infants: teller acuity cards and sweep visual evoked potentials. Optom Vis Sci 74:702–707

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Norcia AM, Tyler CW (1985) Spatial frequency sweep VEP: visual acuity during the first year of life. Vis Res 25:1399–1408

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Norcia AM, Tyler CW (1985) Infant VEP acuity measurements: analysis of individual differences and measurement error. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 61:359–369

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Norcia AM, Tyler CW, Hamer RD (1988) High visual contrast sensitivity in the young human infant. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 29:44–49

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Norcia AM, Tyler CW, Hamer RD (1989) Measurement of spatial contrast sensitivity with the swept contrast VEP. Vis Res 29:627–637

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Norcia AM, Tyler CW, Hamer RD (1990) Development of contrast sensitivity in the human infant. Vis Res 30:1475–1486

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hamer RD, Norcia AM, Tyler CW, Hsu-Winges C (1989) The development of monocular and binocular VEP acuity. Vis Res 29:397–408

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bach M, Maurer JP, Wolf ME (2008) Visual evoked potential-based acuity assessment in normal vision, artificially degraded vision, and in patients. Br J Ophthalmol 9:396–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. da Costa MF, Salomão SR, Berezovsky A, de Haro FM, Ventura DF (2004) Relationship between vision and motor impairment in children with spastic cerebral palsy: new evidence from electrophysiology. Behav Brain Res 149:145–150

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Oliveira AGF, Costa MF, de Souza JM, Ventura DF (2004) Contrast sensitivity threshold measured by sweep-visual evoked potential in term and preterm infants at 3 and 10 months of age. Braz J Med Biol Res 37:1389–1396

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Crow RW, Levin LB, LaBree L, Rubin R, Feldon SE (2003) Sweep visual evoked potential evaluation of contrast sensitivity in Alzheimer’s dementia. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:875–878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gottlob I, Fendick MG, Guo S, Zubcov AA, Odom JV, Reinecke RD (1990) Visual acuity measurement by swept spatial frequency visual-evoked-cortical potentials (VECPS): clinical application in children with various visual disorders. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 27:40–47

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Gottlob I, Wizov SS, Odom JV, Reinecke RD (1993) Predicting optotype visual acuity by swept spatial visual-evoked potential. Clin Vis Sci 8:417–423

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lauritzen L, Jørgensen MH, Michaelsen KF (2004) Test-retest reliability of swept visual evoked potential measurements of infant visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. Pediatr Res 55:701–708

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ridder WH III, Rouse MW (2007) Predicting potential acuities in amblyopes. Doc Ophthalmol 114:135–145

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Seiple WH, Holopigian K (1989) An examination of VEP response phase. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 73:520–531

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Tyler CW, Apkarian P, Levi DM, Nakayama K (1979) Rapid assessment of visual function: an electronic sweep technique for the pattern visual evoked potential. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 18:703–713

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Zemon V, Hartmann EE, Gordon J, Prünte-Glowazki A (1997) An electrophysiological technique for assessment of the development of spatial vision. Optom Vis Sci 74:708–716

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhou P, Zhao MW, Li XX, Hu XF, Wu X, Niu LJ, Yu WZ, Xu XL (2008) A new method for extrapolating the sweep pattern visual evoked potential acuity. Doc Ophthalmol 117:85–91

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Allen D, Norcia AM, Tyler CW (1986) Comparative study of electrophysiological and psychophysical measurement of the contrast sensitivity function in humans. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 63:442–449

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Sokol S, Moskowitz A, McCormack G (1992) Infant VEP and preferential looking acuity measured with phase alternating gratings. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 33:3156–3161

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Allen D, Tyler CW, Norcia AM (1996) Development of grating acuity and contrast sensitivity in the central and peripheral visual field of the human infant. Vis Res 36:1945–1953

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Nelson JI, Seiple WH, Kupersmith MJ, Carr RE (1984) A rapid evoked potential index of cortical adaptation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 59:454–464

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Brigell MG, Peachey NS, Seiple WH (1987) Pattern electroretinogram threshold does not show contrast adaptation. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 28:1614–1616

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Seiple WH, Kupersmith MJ, Nelson JI, Carr RE (1988) Evoked potential assessment of cortical adaptation. Appl Opt 27:1089–1093

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Spinelli D, Pirchio M, Sandini G (1983) Visual acuity in the young infant is highest in a small retinal area. Vis Res 23:1133–1136

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Katsumi O, Hirose T, Tsukada T (1988) Effect of number of elements and size of stimulus field on recordability of pattern reversal visual evoked response. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 29:922–927

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Sakaue H, Katsumi O, Mehta M, Hirose T (1990) Simultaneous pattern reversal ERG and VER recordings. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 31:506–511

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Norcia AM, Tyler CW, Allen D (1986) Electrophysiological assessment of contrast sensitivity in human infants. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 61:12–15

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sokol S, Moskowitz A, McCormack G, Augliere R (1988) Infant grating acuity is temporally tuned. Vis Res 28:1357–1366

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Katsumi O, Denno S, Arai M, de Faria JML, Hirose T (1997) Comparison of preferential looking acuity and pattern reversal visual evoked response acuity in pediatric patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 235:684–690

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Ridder WH III, McCulloch D, Herbert AM (1998) Stimulus duration, neural adaptation, and sweep visual evoked potential acuity estimates. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 39:2759–2768

    Google Scholar 

  40. Yadav NK, Almoqbel F, Head L, Irving EL, Leat SJ (2009) Threshold determination in sweep VEP and the effects of criterion. Doc Ophthalmol 119:109–121

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Tang Y, Norcia AM (1995) An adaptive filter for steady-state evoked responses. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 96:268–277

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Winer B (1971) Multifactor experiments having repeated measures on the same elements. Statistical principles in experimental design. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 514–603

    Google Scholar 

  43. Winer B (1971) Single-factor experiments having repeated measures on the same elements. Statistical principles in experimental design. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 261–305

    Google Scholar 

  44. Nelson JI, Kupersmith MJ, Seiple WH, Weiss PA, Carr RE (1984) Spatio-temporal conditions which elicit or abolish the oblique effect in man: direct measurement with swept evoked potential. Vis Res 24:579–586

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Seiple WH, Kupersmith MJ, Nelson JI, Carr RE (1984) The assessment of evoked potential contrast thresholds using real-time retrieval. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 25:627–631

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the following grants to ELI: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Canada Research Chairs, Premier’s Research Excellence Awards, Canadian Foundation for Innovation, Ontario Innovation Trust, and by a scholarship for F. Almoqbel from King Saud University, Saudi Arabia.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. School of Optometry, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada

    Fahad M. Almoqbel, Susan J. Leat, Liseann M. Head & Elizabeth L. Irving

  2. SUNY College of Optometry, 33 West 42nd Street, New York, NY, 10036, USA

    Naveen K. Yadav

Authors
  1. Fahad M. Almoqbel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Naveen K. Yadav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susan J. Leat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Liseann M. Head
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Elizabeth L. Irving
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fahad M. Almoqbel.

Additional information

The authors have full control of the all primary data, and agree to allow Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology to review the data upon request.

Financial relationship

None of the authors has a financial relationship with the organizations that sponsored this study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Almoqbel, F.M., Yadav, N.K., Leat, S.J. et al. Effects of sweep VEP parameters on visual acuity and contrast thresholds in children and adults. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 249, 613–623 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-010-1469-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-010-1469-8

Keywords

  • sVEP
  • Visual evoked potential
  • Visual acuity
  • Contrast sensitivity