Abstract
Background
The aim of this study was to develop a fast and efficient electrophysiological protocol to examine the visual field’s integrity, which would be useful in pediatric testing.
Methods
Steady-state visual-evoked potentials (ssVEPs) to field-specific radial checkerboards flickering at two cycle frequencies (7.5 and 6 Hz for central and peripheral stimulations, respectively) recorded at Oz were collected from 22 participants from 5 to 34 years old and from 5 visually impaired adolescents (12–16 years old). Responses from additional leads (POz, O1, O2), and the impact of gaze deviation on the signals, were also investigated in a subgroup of participants.
Results
Steady-state visual-evoked potentials responses were similar at all electrode sites, although the signal from the central stimulation was significantly higher at Oz and was highly sensitive in detecting gaze deviation. No effect of age or sex was found, indicating similar ssVEP responses between adults and healthy children. Visual acuity was related to the central signal when comparing healthy participants with four central visual impaired adolescents. Clinical validation of our electrophysiological protocol was also achieved in a 15-year-old adolescent with a severe peripheral visual deficit, as assessed with Goldmann perimetry.
Conclusions
A single electrode over Oz is sufficient to gather both central and peripheral visual signals and also to control for gaze deviation. Our method presents several advantages in evaluating visual fields integrity, as it is fast, reliable, and efficient, and applicable in children as young as 5 years old. However, a larger sample of healthy children should be tested to establish clinical norms.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Eke T, Talbot JF, Lawden MC (1997) Severe persistent visual field constriction associated with vigabatrin. BMJ 314(7075):180–181
Thiadens AA, Phan TM, Zekveld-Vroon RC, Leroy BP, van den Born LI, Hoyng CB, Klaver CC, Writing Committee for the Cone Disorders Study Group C, Roosing S, Pott JW, van Schooneveld MJ, van Moll-Ramirez N, van Genderen MM, Boon CJ, den Hollander AI, Bergen AA, De Baere E, Cremers FP, Lotery AJ (2012) Clinical course, genetic etiology, and visual outcome in cone and cone-rod dystrophy. Ophthalmology 119(4):819–826
Heijl A, Buchholz P, Norrgren G, Bengtsson B (2013) Rates of visual field progression in clinical glaucoma care. Acta Ophthalmol 91(5):406–412
Holl RW, Lang GE, Grabert M, Heinze E, Lang GK, Debatin KM (1998) Diabetic retinopathy in pediatric patients with type-1 diabetes: effect of diabetes duration, prepubertal and pubertal onset of diabetes, and metabolic control. J Pediatr 132(5):790–794
The Committee for the Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity (1984) An international classification of retinopathy of prematurity. Arch Ophthalmol 102(8):1130–1134
Walsh T (2010) Visual fields, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New York
Wall M, Johnson CA, Kutzko KE, Nguyen R, Brito C, Keltner JL (1998) Long- and short-term variability of automated perimetry results in patients with optic neuritis and healthy subjects. Arch Ophthalmol 116(1):53–61
Wall M (2004) What’s new in perimetry. J Neuro-Ophthalmol 24(1):46–55
Akar Y, Yilmaz A, Yucel I (2008) Assessment of an effective visual field testing strategy for a normal pediatric population. Ophthalmologica 222(5):329–333
Sutter E (1991) The fast m-transform: a fast computation of cross-correlations with binary m-sequences. Soc Ind Appl Math 20(4):686–694
Baseler HA, Sutter EE, Klein SA, Carney T (1994) The topography of visual evoked response properties across the visual field. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 90(1):65–81
Goldberg I, Graham SL, Klistorner AI (2002) Multifocal objective perimetry in the detection of glaucomatous field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 133(1):29–39
Hood DC, Odel JG, Winn BJ (2003) The multifocal visual evoked potential. J Neuroophthalmol 23(4):279–289
Danesh-Meyer HV, Carroll SC, Gaskin BJ, Gao A, Gamble GD (2006) Correlation of the multifocal visual evoked potential and standard automated perimetry in compressive optic neuropathies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47(4):1458–1463
Chen JY, Hood DC, Odel JG, Behrens MM (2006) The effects of retinal abnormalities on the multifocal visual evoked potential. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47(10):4378–4385
Hood DC, Bach M, Brigell M, Keating D, Kondo M, Lyons JS, Palmowski-Wolfe AM (2008) ISCEV guidelines for clinical multifocal electroretinography (2007 edition). Doc Ophthalmol 116(1):1–11
Marmor MF, Kellner U, Lai TY, Lyons JS, Mieler WF, American Academy of O (2011) Revised recommendations on screening for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine retinopathy. Ophthalmology 118(2):415–422
Yukawa E, Matsuura T, Kim YJ, Taketani F, Hara Y (2008) Usefulness of multifocal VEP in a child requiring perimetry. Pediatr Neurol 38(5):360–362
Abdullah SN, Aldahlawi N, Rosli Y, Vaegan, Boon MY, Maddess T (2012) Effect of contrast, stimulus density, and viewing distance on multifocal steady-state visual evoked potentials (MSVs). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53(9):5527–5535
Abdullah SN, Vaegan, Boon MY, Maddess T (2012) Contrast-response functions of the multifocal steady-state VEP (MSV). Clin Neurophysiol 123(9):1865–1871
Bjerre A, Grigg JR, Parry NR, Henson DB (2004) Test-retest variability of multifocal visual evoked potential and SITA standard perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45(11):4035–4040
Hood DC, Greenstein VC (2003) Multifocal VEP and ganglion cell damage: applications and limitations for the study of glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res 22(2):201–251
Menz M, Sutter E, Menz M (2004) The effect of fixation instability on the multifocal VEP. Doc Ophthalmol 109(2):147–156
Menz MK SE, Menz MD (2003) The effect of fixation instability on the multifocal ERG. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:E-Abstract 2699
Harding GF, Spencer EL, Wild JM, Conway M, Bohn RL (2002) Field-specific visual-evoked potentials: identifying field defects in vigabatrin-treated children. Neurology 58(8):1261–1265
Spencer EL, Harding GF (2003) Examining visual field defects in the paediatric population exposed to vigabatrin. Doc Ophthalmol 107(3):281–287
Jasper HH (1958) Report of the Committee on methods of clinical examination in electroencephalography. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 10:370–371
Horton JC, Hoyt WF (1991) The representation of the visual field in human striate cortex. A revision of the classic Holmes map. Arch Ophthalmol 109(6):816–824
Wu J, Yan T, Zhang Z, Jin F, Guo Q (2012) Retinotopic mapping of the peripheral visual field to human visual cortex by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Brain Mapp 33(7):1727–1740
Regan D (1982) Comparison of transient and steady-state methods. Ann N Y Acad Sci 388:45–71
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. Vision Res 36(13):1945–1953
Regan D (1977) Steady-state evoked potentials. J Opt Soc Am 67(11):1475–1489
Porciatti V, Sartucci F (1996) Retinal and cortical evoked responses to chromatic contrast stimuli. Specific losses in both eyes of patients with multiple sclerosis and unilateral optic neuritis. Brain J Neurol 119(Pt 3):723–740
Heine M, Meigen T (2004) The dependency of simultaneously recorded retinal and cortical potentials on temporal frequency. Doc Ophthalmol 108(1):1–8
Harding GF, Robertson KA, Holliday I (2000) Field specific visual evoked potentials for assessment of peripheral field defect in a paediatric population. Suppl Clin Neurophysiol 53:323–330
Spaeth EBFF (1955) Estimation of loss of visual efficiency. AMA Arch Ophthalmol 54:462–468
Pardhan S (1993) Binocular performance in patients with unilateral cataract using the Regan test: binocular summation and inhibition with low-contrast charts. Eye (London, England) 7(Pt 1):59–62
Pardhan S, Gilchrist J (1992) Binocular contrast summation and inhibition in amblyopia. The influence of the interocular difference on binocular contrast sensitivity. Doc Ophthalmol 82(3):239–248
Rubin GS, Munoz B, Bandeen-Roche K, West SK (2000) Monocular versus binocular visual acuity as measures of vision impairment and predictors of visual disability. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41(11):3327–3334
Zemon V, Ratliff F (1982) Visual evoked potentials: evidence for lateral interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 79(18):5723–5726
Gottlob I, Fendick MG, Guo S, Zubcov AA, Odom JV, Reinecke RD (1990) Visual acuity measurements by swept spatial frequency visual-evoked-cortical potentials (VECPs): clinical application in children with various visual disorders. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 27(1):40–47
Regan D (1966) An effect of stimulus colour on average steady-state potentials evoked in man. Nature 210(5040):1056–1057
Tyler CW, Apkarian P, Levi DM, Nakayama K (1979) Rapid assessment of visual function: an electronic sweep technique for the pattern visual evoked potential. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 18(7):703–713
Norcia AM, Tyler CW (1985) Infant VEP acuity measurements: analysis of individual differences and measurement error. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 61(5):359–369
Norcia AM, Tyler CW, Hamer RD, Wesemann W (1989) Measurement of spatial contrast sensitivity with the swept contrast VEP. Vision Res 29(5):627–637
Johansson B, Jakobsson P (2006) Fourier-analysed steady-state VEPs in pre-school children with and without normal binocularity. Doc Ophthalmol 112(1):13–22
Norcia AM, Tyler CW (1985) Spatial frequency sweep VEP: visual acuity during the first year of life. Vision Res 25(10):1399–1408
Bach M, Meigen T (1999) Do’s and don’ts in Fourier analysis of steady-state potentials. Doc Ophthalmol 99(1):69–82
Fisher RS, Harding G, Erba G, Barkley GL, Wilkins A, Epilepsy Foundation of America Working G (2005) Photic- and pattern-induced seizures: a review for the Epilepsy Foundation of America Working Group. Epilepsia 46(9):1426–1441
Rebai M, Bagot JD, Viggiano MP (1993) Hemispheric asymmetry in transient visual evoked potentials induced by the spatial factor of the stimulation. Brain Cogn 23(2):263–278
Rebai M, Bernard C, Lannou J, Jouen F (1998) Spatial frequency and right hemisphere: an electrophysiological investigation. Brain Cogn 36(1):21–29
Di Russo F, Spinelli D (2002) Effects of sustained, voluntary attention on amplitude and latency of steady-state visual evoked potential: a costs and benefits analysis. Clin Neurophysiol 113(11):1771–1777
Muller MM, Malinowski P, Gruber T, Hillyard SA (2003) Sustained division of the attentional spotlight. Nature 424(6946):309–312
Kim YJ, Verghese P (2012) The selectivity of task-dependent attention varies with surrounding context. J Neurosci 32(35):12180–12191
Parry NR, Murray IJ, Hadjizenonos C (1999) Spatio-temporal tuning of VEPs: effect of mode of stimulation. Vision Res 39(21):3491–3497
Strasburger H, Remky A, Murray IJ, Hadjizenonos C, Rentschler I (1996) Objective measurement of contrast sensitivity and visual acuity with the steady-state visual evoked potential. Ger J Ophthalmol 5(1):42–52
Good WV (2008) Retinopathy of prematurity and the peripheral retina. J Pediatr 153(5):591–592
Hamilton R, Bradnam MS, Dudgeon J, Mactier H (2008) Maturation of rod function in preterm infants with and without retinopathy of prematurity. J Pediatr 153(5):605–611
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Mathieu Simard for his very helpful assistance in data collection and analysis. This research was funded by The Vision Health Research Network of the FRQS and The Quebec Foundation for the Blind.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Each author listed on the manuscript has seen and approved the submission of this version of the manuscript and takes full responsibility for the manuscript, and no one of them received any form of payment to produce the manuscript. There is no conflict of interest. The main findings of the present study have been presented only in a poster form at the 50th ISCEV symposium in Spain in June 2012.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hébert-Lalonde, N., Carmant, L., Safi, D. et al. A frequency-tagging electrophysiological method to identify central and peripheral visual field deficits. Doc Ophthalmol 129, 17–26 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-014-9439-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-014-9439-9