Skip to main content
Log in

Multi-channel visual evoked potentials in early compressive lesions of the chiasm

  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The sensitivity of transient, pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials in the detection of early compressive lesions of the chiasm is controversial in the literature. There have been claims that the technique is capable of detecting an abnormality in the absence of any demonstrable visual field loss, and conversely that VEPs are not reliable for the detection of chiasmal lesions even when a bitemporal hemianopsia is clearly recordable. Using nine patients with pituitary adenoma we attempted to quantify the extent of visual field loss and correlate the diagnostic capabilities of topographically recorded potentials following full- and half-field stimulus presentations of various field and check sizes. Differential light thresholds were measured and quantified according to one investigator's graticule for the neural representation of visual space. Results show a strong correlation between the degree of information loss and the diagnostic value of the visual evoked potential. The technique was, however, capable of detecting abnormality in the absence of recordable field loss when large field and check sizes were used.

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, Halliday E, Kriss A, McDonald WI, Mushin J. The pattern-evoked potential in compression of the anterior pathways. Brain 1976; 99: 357–74.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Blumhardt LD, Barrett G, Halliday AM. The asymmetrical visual evoked potential to pattern reversal in one half-field and its significance for the analysis of visual field defects. Br J Ophthalmol 1977; 61: 456–61.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hume AL, Cant BR. Pattern visual evoked potential in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis and other disorders. Proc Aust Assoc Neurol 1976; 13: 7–13.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Onofrj M, Bodis-Wollner I, Mylin L. Visual evoked potential diagnosis of field defects in patients with chiasmatic and retrochiasmatic lesions. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1982; 45: 294–302.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Holder GE. The effects of chiasmal compression on the pattern visual evoked potential. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1978; 45: 278–80.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Clement R, Flanagan JG, Harding GFA. Source derivation of the visual evoked response to pattern reversal stimulation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1985; 62: 74–6.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Aminoff MJ, Maitland CG, Kennard C, Hoyt WE. Visual evoked potential and field defects. In: Nodar RH, Barber C, eds. Visual evoked potentials: clinical application. London: Butterworths, 1984: 329–34.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Maitland MJ, Aminoff C, Kennard C, Hoyt WF. Evoked potentials in the evaluation of visual field defects due to chiasmal or retrochiasmal lesions. Neurology 1982; 32: 986–91.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Doeschatte JT. Perimetric charts in an equivalent projection allowing a panmetric determination of the extension of the visual field. Ophthalmologica 1947; 113: 257–70.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Crick RP. A system of visual field testing and recording using a parabolic projection. Trans Ophthalmol Soc UK 1957; 77: 593–607.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Drasdo N, Peaston WC. Sampling systems for visual field assessment and computerised perimetry. Br Ophthalmol 1980; 64: 705–12.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Drasdo N. The neural representation of visual space. Nature 1977; 266: 544–56.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Flanagan JG, Drasdo N, Harding GFA. The neural representation of the visual field-automated assessment and interpretation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1983; 4: 188.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Yiannikas C, Walsh JC. The variation of the pattern shift visual evoked response with the size of the stimulus field. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1983; 55: 427–35.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Celesia GG, Daly RF. Effect of aging on visual evoked responses. Arch Neurol 1977; 34: 403–7.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Blumhardt LD, Halliday AM. Hemisphere contribution to composition of the pattern-evoked potential waveform. Exp Brain Res 1979; 36: 53–69.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kriss A, Carroll WM, Blumhardt LD, Halliday AM. Pattern and flash evoked potential changes in toxic (nutritional) optic neuropathy. In: Courjon J, Mauguiere F, Revol M, eds. Clinical applications of evoked potentials in neurology. New York: Raven Press, 1982; 11–9.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Vaughan HG, Katzman R. Evoked response in visual disorders. Ann NY Acad Sci 1964; 112: 305–19.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cameron HH, Hedges TR, Aminlari A. Correlation of ocular findings and plain skull roentgenogram in pituitary adenoma. Ann Ophthalmol 1982; 14: 733–40.

    Google Scholar 

  20. DeVita E, Johnson B, Sodur AA. Optic nerve degeneration in tract hemianopsia. Invest Ophthalmol and Vis Sci 1987; 28 (suppl): 32.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Flanagan, J.G., Harding, G.F.A. Multi-channel visual evoked potentials in early compressive lesions of the chiasm. Doc Ophthalmol 69, 271–281 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154408

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154408

Key words

Navigation