Abstract
The role of the central and peripheral stimulus fields on monocular and binocular amplitude and binocular summation of the pattern reversal visual evoked response were investigated. When the central stimulus field size was smaller than 2.4 °, there was no significant difference between the amplitude of the monocular and the binocular responses, but when it was equal to or larger than 3.2 ° × 3.2 °, the binocular amplitude was significantly larger than the monocular. The value of binocular summation was highest at the central stimulus field of 4.0 ° × 4.0 °; at larger sizes, there were no significant changes in the value. Use of a central stimulus field size larger than 3.2 ° × 3.2 ° was therefore considered a prerequisite for the effective assessment of visual function, especially binocular function, by means of the pattern reversal visual evoked response.
With regard to the role of peripheral stimulus field on pattern reversal response, both the monocular and binocular responses, but particularly the latter, were found to be sensitive to a scotoma produced by covering the center of a full-field stimulus. The value of the binocular summation showed a significant reduction with a small central scotoma. We concluded that the pattern reversal visual evoked response is very sensitive to a central scotoma and that binocular function is mediated mainly through the central stimulus field.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Katsumi O, Tanino T, Hirose T. Objective evaluation of binocular function with pattern reversal VER. I. Effect of contrast. Acta Ophthalmol 1985; 63: 706–11.
Katsumi O, Tanino T, Hirose T. Objective evaluation of binocular function with pattern reversal VER. II. Effect of mean luminosity. Acta Ophthalmol 1986; 64: 199–205.
Spekreijse H. Analysis of EEG responses in man evoked by sine wave modulated light. The Hague, The Netherlands: Dr. W. Junk Publishers, 1966: 138.
Adachi E, Misago M, Kanayama N. The effect of field size on spatial frequency characteristics determined by human VECPs. Folia Ophthalmol Jpn 1979; 30: 657–60.
Adachi-Usami E. Stimulus field, element size and human VECP. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Series 1980; 23: 227–35.
Katsumi O, Matsuhashi M, Oguchi Y. Effect of stimulus parameters on the pattern reversal VECP. Acta Soc Ophthalmol Jpn 1980; 84: 1723–30.
Hoeckstra J, Van der Good DPJ, Van der Brink G, Bilsen FA. The influence of the number of cycles upon the visual contrast threshold for spatial sine wave patterns. Vision Res 1974; 14: 365–8.
Savoy RL, McCann JJ. Visibility of low spatial frequency sine wave targets: dependence on number of cycles. J Opt Soc Am 1974; 65: 343–50.
Mitsuyu M, Yanashima K. Binocular additivity of visual evoked cortical potentials in man. The effect of luminance and contrast. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Series 1981; 31: 421–6.
Röver J, Schaubele G, Bernd K. Macula and periphery: their contributions to the visual evoked potentials (VEP) in humans. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1980; 214: 47–51.
Groneberg A, Teping C. Pattern evoked cortical potentials to simultaneous stimulation of both eyes. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Series 1980; 27: 313–21.
Tsutsui J, Kimura H, Fukai S. Objective perimetry by visual evoked cortical potential. Characteristics of field location and binocular effect. Acta Soc Ophthalmol Jpn 1981; 85: 1567–73.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Katsumi, O., Hirose, T. & Tanino, T. Effect of stimulus field size and localization on the binocular pattern reversal visual evoked response. Doc Ophthalmol 69, 293–305 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154410
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154410