Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Sensitivity and specificity of the step VEP in suspected functional visual acuity loss

Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background/aim

Early and accurate diagnosis of functional visual loss (FVL) allows optimum management. Visual evoked potentials (VEPs) offer a means of objectively estimating acuity and therefore could assist with early and accurate diagnosis. The aim of this study was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the step VEP in diagnosing FVL.

Methods

A retrospective audit was conducted in 36 school-aged children presenting with reduced visual acuity and clinical suspicion of FVL. All had undergone step VEP testing as part of their investigation. Medical notes were reviewed, and where necessary, referring centres, general practitioners or electronic clinical portals were consulted to obtain longer-term outcome data.

Results

Twenty-seven of the 36 patients (75 %) were classified as having had FVL: all had a normal step VEP spatial threshold. Nine patients (25 %) had an organic cause for their acuity loss, of whom seven had abnormal step VEP spatial thresholds: the other two patients had some functional overlay to their organic disease. The step VEP sensitivity was 78 % (95 % confidence interval 40–96 %), and specificity was 100 % (95 % confidence interval 84–100 %).

Conclusion

The high specificity of the step VEP for FVL warrants increased suspicion of an organic cause should the step VEP spatial threshold be abnormal.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chen CS, Lee AW, Karagiannis A, Crompton JL, Selva D (2007) Practical clinical approaches to functional visual loss. J Clin Neurosci 14:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lessell S (2011) Nonorganic visual loss: what’s in a name? Am J Ophthalmol 151:569–571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mace CJ, Trimble MR (1991) ‘Hysteria’, ‘functional’ or ‘psychogenic’? A survey of British neurologists’ preferences. J R Soc Med 84:471–475

    Google Scholar 

  4. Taylor D (1997) Non-organic visual disorders. In: Taylor D (ed) Paediatric ophthalmology. Blackwell Science Ltd, London, pp 765–771

    Google Scholar 

  5. Behrman J (1969) The visual evoked response in hysterical amblyopia. Br J Ophthalmol 53:839–845

    Google Scholar 

  6. Potts AM, Nagaya T (1969) Studies on the visual evoked response: III. Strabismus amblyopia and hysterical amblyopia. Doc Ophthalmol 26:394–402

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Berman MS, Levi DM (1975) Hysterical amblyopia: electrodiagnostic and clinical evaluation. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 52:267–274

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kramer KK, La Piana FG, Appleton B (1979) Ocular malingering and hysteria: diagnosis and management. Surv Ophthalmol 24:89–96

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Röver J, Bach M (1987) Pattern electroretinogram plus visual evoked potential: a decisive test in patients suspected of malingering. Doc Ophthalmol 66:245–251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bobak P, Khanna P, Goodwin J, Brigell M (1993) Pattern visual evoked potentials in cases of ambiguous acuity loss. Doc Ophthalmol 85:185–192

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Saitoh E, Adachi-Usami E, Mizota A, Fujimoto N (2001) Comparison of visual evoked potentials in patients with psychogenic visual disturbance and malingering. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 38:21–26

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Nakamura A, Tabuchi A, Matsuda E, Yamaguchi W (2000) Dynamic topography of pattern visual evoked potentials (PVEP) in psychogenic visual loss patients. Doc Ophthalmol 101:95–113

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Nakamura A, Akio T, Matsuda E, Wakami Y (2001) Pattern visual evoked potentials in malingering. J Neuro-Ophthalmol 21:42–45

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. McBain VA, Robson AG, Hogg CR, Holder GE (2007) Assessment of patients with suspected non-organic visual loss using pattern appearance visual evoked potentials. Graefes Arch Clin Exp 245:502–510

    Google Scholar 

  15. Xu S, Meyer D, Yoser S, Mathews D, Elfervig JL (2001) Pattern visual evoked potential in the diagnosis of functional visual loss. Ophthalmology 108:76–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Steele M, Seiple WH, Carr RE, Klug R (1989) The clinical utility of visual-evoked potential acuity testing. Am J Ophthalmol 108:572–577

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 

  18. Mackay AM, Bradnam MS, Hamilton R, Elliot AT, Dutton GN (2008) Real-time rapid acuity assessment using VEPs: development and validation of the step VEP technique. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49:438–441

    Google Scholar 

  19. Colenbrander A (2003) Aspects of vision loss-visual functions and functional vision. Vis Impair Res 5:115–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Brown B, Lovie-Kitchin J (1993) Repeated visual acuity measurement: establishing the patient’s own criterion for change. Optom Vis Sci 70(1):45–53

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mackay AM, Hamilton R, Bradnam MS (2003) Faster and more sensitive VEP recording in children. Doc Ophthalmol 107:251–259

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mackay AM, Bradnam MS, Hamilton R (2003) Rapid detection of threshold VEPs. Clin Neurophysiol 114:1009–1020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Victor JD, Mast J (1991) A new statistic for steady-state evoked potentials. Electroencephalog Clin Neurophysiol 78:378–388

    Google Scholar 

  24. Meigen T, Bach M (2000) On the statistical significance of electrophysiological steady-state responses. Doc Ophthalmol 98:207–232

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mackay AM (2003) Assessing children’s visual acuity using steady-state evoked potentials. University of Glasgow. PhD Thesis

  26. Williams C, Northstone K, Sabates R, Feinstein L, Emond A, Dutton GN (2011) Visual perceptual difficulties and under-achievement at school in a large community-based sample of children. PLoS ONE 6:e14772

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the following for providing some of the patients described in this series: Dr. A Brown, Dr. J Dudgeon, Dr. R Bowman, Dr. S Gupta, Dr. I Hanna, Dr. I Hunter, Dr. N Kennedy, Dr. J Kerr, Dr. D Mansfield and Dr. M O’Regan.

Conflict of interests

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ruth Hamilton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hamilton, R., Bradnam, M.S., Dutton, G.N. et al. Sensitivity and specificity of the step VEP in suspected functional visual acuity loss. Doc Ophthalmol 126, 99–104 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-012-9362-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-012-9362-x

Keywords

Navigation