Advertisement

Contrast Evoked Potentials and Psychophysics in Multiple Sclerosis Patients

  • H. Spekreijse
  • A. L. Duwaer
  • F. E. Posthumus Meyjes
Part of the NATO Conference Series book series (NATOCS, volume 9)

Abstract

Visual evoked potentials (VEPs) have become widely accepted in recent years in diagnostic schemes for the assessment of multiple sclerosis (MS). It has been shown that for this purpose a deviation in latency is a better criterion than a deviation in amplitude, since amplitude varies widely among subjects, whereas EP latency, especially with contrast stimulation, remains restricted to a rather narrow range. The latency of the EP to stimulation with a reversing checkerboard pattern appears to be increased in 268 out of 393 (= 68%) MS patients (Halliday et al., 1973: 49/51 = 96%; Asselman et al., 1975: 34/51 = 61%; Mastaglia et al., 1976: 34/68 = 50%; Regan et al., 1976: 6/13 = 46%; Lowitsch et al., 1976: 98/135 = 73%; Hennerici et al., 1977: 35/57 = 61%; Duwaer and Spekreijse, 1978: 12/18 = 67%). However, latency increases are not specific for multiple sclerosis since they have also been observed in patients with a variety of other pathologies (Assesman et al., 1975; Halliday et al., 1976). Furthermore, an increased EP latency cannot always be ascribed to an increased conductance time due to demyelination of the optic nerve fibers since a variety of modifications in the stimulus situation — modifications which might also be induced by the presence of pathologies in the subject — may result in an increased EP latency (Duwaer and Spekreijse, 1978).Some examples are given in Fig. 1.

Keywords

Multiple Sclerosis Multiple Sclerosis Patient Peak Latency Amplitude Characteristic Optic Nerve Fiber 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asselman, P., Chadwick, D.W. and Marsden, C.D. Visual evoked responses in the diagnosis and management of patients suspected of multiple sclerosisBrain, 197598, 261–282.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Duwaer, A.L. and Spekreijse, H. Latency of luminance and contrast evoked potentials in multiple sclerosis patients. Electroen- ceph. Clin. Neurophysiol., 1978,45 244–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Halliday, A.M., Halliday, E., Kriss, A., McDonald, W.I. and Mushin, J. The pattern evoked potential in compression of the anterior visual pathways. Brain 1976, 99, 357–374.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Halliday, A.M., McDonald, W.I. and Mushin, J. Visual evoked response in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Brit. Med. J., 1973, IV, 661–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hennerici, M., Wenzel, D. and Freud, H.J. The comparison of small size rectangle and checkerboard stimulation for the evaluation of delayed visual evoked responses in patients suspected of multiple sclerosis. Brain, 1977, 100, 119–136.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lowitsch, K., Kuhnt, U., Sakmann, Ch., Maurer, K., Hopf, H.C.,Schott, D. and Tater, K. Visual pattern evoked responses and blink responses in assessment of MS diagnosis. (A clinical study of 135 Multiple Sclerosis patients.) J. Neurol., 1976, 213, 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mastaglia, F.L., Black, J.L. and Collins, D.W.K. Visual and spinal evoked potentials in diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Brit. Med. J., 1976, VI, 732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. McAlpine, E., Lumsden, C.E. and Acheson, E.D. Multiple Sclerosis, Edinburgh: Livingstone, SSS 1965.Google Scholar
  9. McDonald, W.I. and Sears, T.A. Effect of demyelination on conduction in the central nervous system. Nature, 1969, 221, 182–183.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ogden, T.E. and Miller, R.F. Studies of the optic nerve of the rhesus monkey: Nerve fiber spectriam and physiological properties. Vis. Res., 1966, 6 455–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rasminsky, M. and Sears, T.A. Internodal conduction in undissected demyelinated nerve fibers. J. Physiol., 1972, 227, 323–350.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Regan, D., Milner, B.A. and Heron, J.R. Delayed visual perception and delayed visual evoked potentials in the spinal form of multiple sclerosis and in retrobulbar neuritis. Brain,197699, 43–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Spekreijse
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. L. Duwaer
    • 1
    • 2
  • F. E. Posthumus Meyjes
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Netherlands Ophthalmic Research Institute and Department of NeurologyWilhelmina GasthuisAmsterdamNetherlands
  2. 2.Laboratory of Medical PhysicsUniversity of AmsterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations