June 2013
Volume 54, Issue 15
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2013
Electrically elicited visually evoked potentials (eVEPs) in Argus® II prosthesis wearers
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • H Christiaan Stronks
    Computer Vision, NICTA CRL, Canberra, ACT, Australia
    Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
  • Gislin Dagnelie
    Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
  • Michael Barry
    Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships H Christiaan Stronks, Second Sight Medical Products (C), Second Sight Medical Products (P); Gislin Dagnelie, None; Michael Barry, Second Sight Medical Products, Inc. (F), QLT Inc. (F)
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2013, Vol.54, 1024. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      H Christiaan Stronks, Gislin Dagnelie, Michael Barry; Electrically elicited visually evoked potentials (eVEPs) in Argus® II prosthesis wearers. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):1024.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract
 
Purpose
 

To investigate whether electrically elicited visually evoked potentials (eVEPs) can be used to establish input-output characteristics and predict subjective threshold of electrical stimulation in Argus® II retinal prosthesis wearers.

 
Methods
 

We recorded eVEPs in three subjects while systematically varying stimulus level. Subjects provided feedback by rating the brightness and size of the perceived flashes of light (‘phosphenes’). Input-output functions were generated using eVEP amplitude and latency based of the first two positive peaks (P1 and P2). Correlation was determined using linear regression, followed by an F-test on the slope. eVEP thresholds were defined as the amplitude equaling 4 times the standard deviation (4×SD) of the eVEP waveform. We also investigated the effect of stimulating different retinal locations, the maximal feasible pulse rate, and adaptation (‘fading’).

 
Results
 

P1 and P2 amplitudes significantly increased as a function of subjective percept in all three subjects (linear regression and F-test, P< 0.05). Only 1 out of 3 subjects showed a significant decrease of eVEP latency with stimulus level and rating (P< 0.05). P2 amplitude yielded accurate predictions of subjective threshold in all three subjects (table 1). Stimulating macular electrodes resulted in higher eVEP amplitudes and shorter latencies compared to more peripheral electrodes (RM ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test, P< 0.05), while subjective ratings were not different (P> 0.05). At pulse rates above 2/3 Hz, eVEP waveforms became distorted and amplitudes declined. Subjective phosphene brightness decreased over time, which was reflected in P1 amplitude (linear regression and F-test, P< 0.01), but not in P2 amplitude (P> 0.05).

 
Conclusions
 

The eVEP P2 amplitude is a robust measure for generating input-output relationships and is a fairly accurate predictor of subjective threshold. Pulse rates of up to 2/3 Hz can be used for eVEP recordings. Retinal location affects eVEP amplitudes and latencies irrespective of subjective percept, which has to be taken into account when using the eVEP clinically. We envision that eVEPs may become a diagnostic and monitoring tool that can find important use as an objective measure for rehabilitation purposes.

 
 
Subjective threshold and interpolated eVEP P1 and P2 thresholds.
 
Subjective threshold and interpolated eVEP P1 and P2 thresholds.
 
Keywords: 508 electrophysiology: non-clinical • 755 visual cortex  
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×