Active electrodes were stainless steel screws (0.7-mm shaft diameter, 3 mm in length; MicroFasteners Pty. Ltd., VIC, Australia) implanted epidurally over V1 of each hemisphere (3-mm laterally to midline, 7-mm posterior to bregma
44 ), consistent with previous studies.
45–49 Implantation was performed under isoflurane inhalation (3%–3.5% inspired concentration for induction, 1.5%–5% once sedated: 96.5% pure O
2 gas with isoflurane, Attane, 99.9%; Bomac Pty. Ltd., Hornsby, NSW, Australia) 1 week prior to testing. The animals' head was stabilized by ear bars for surgery (Model 900; Kopf, Tujunga, CA) to allow holes to be drilled (Dremel 300 series; Bosch, VIC, Australia) for screw implantation. Holes (0.8 mm) in the skull through which the active electrodes were inserted (∼1-mm deep), were made using a dental burr (∼0.7-mm diameter, Storz Instruments, #E0824A; Bausch & Lomb, Inc., Feldkirchen, Germany). Dental amalgam (Dentsply Rapid Repair; DeguDent GmbH, Hanau, Germany) was spread over the wound to encase the electrode assembly, leaving approximately 1.5 mm of the screw exposed for recording. Intraperitoneal Carprofen (0.2 mL, Rimadyl 0.5%, 5 mg/mL; Pfizer Animal Health Group, West Ryde, NSW, Australia) and saline (1.5 mL, 0.9% sodium chloride; Baxter Healthcare, Toongabbie, NSW, Australia) were provided for analgesia and fluid replacement, respectively. Prophylactic antibiotic ointment Tobrex (0.3% Tobramycin; Alcon Laboratories) was also applied to the wound.
On the day of recording, an alligator clip (stainless steel, 26 mm, HM3022, generic brand) soldered to platinum leads (F-E2-30; Grass Telefactor, West Warwick, RI) connected each active electrode for signal collection. The VEP reference was a silver wire hooked around lower front incisors, as in previous studies.
34,48,50,51
It is important to note that our binocular stimulation approach can contain contribution from the ipsilateral control eye and potential callosal routes. This former contribution was established by unilateral pharmacological inhibition of postreceptoral responses in our pilot studies (
Supplementary Fig. S2, Tables S1, S2). In brief, a combination of metabotropic receptor (2-amino-4-phosphonobutyric acid; APB), ionotropic receptor (cis-2,3-piperidinedicarboxylic acid; PDA) and/or glial cell inhibition (barium chloride; BaCl
2) were used to pharmacologically transect the optic nerve with minimal trauma in one or both eyes, to determine monocular ipsilateral, contralateral, and nonvisual contributions to the rat cortical flash-VEP. A similar magnitude of interhemispheric asymmetry of VEP responses have been reported by other studies involving more (ie, enucleation) and less invasive strategies (unilateral occlusion).
52,53 As for interemispheric transfer, enhanced contralateral bias has been noted when callosal inputs are disturbed.
54 However, to our knowledge, the exact proportion of transcallosal contributions to the adult rat VEP has yet to be quantified.
While monocular stimulation provides a better isolation of VEPs in the pigmented rat, it does not prevent the possibility for interhemispheric interactions, nor does the monocular approach contain less nonvisual background contributions than binocular recordings. It suffers similar limitations in that some nonvisual contribution to the VEP must be acknowledged (
Supplementary Figs. S2A, S2E–F, Table S1). Although post hoc removal of the ipsilateral contribution is possible, this was not undertaken on the current binocular data, as it is unlikely that a canonical ipsilateral waveform can be used for each individual animal. Subtracting an average ipsilateral waveform (established in a separate group of rats) from each animal carries the risk of distorting the VEP, if waveforms are out of phase. Concurrent bihemispheric VEP recording avoids the need for an additional control group. An internal control afforded by binocular stimulation and bihemispheric recording reduces intersubject variability associated with flash VEPs, and allows improved assessment of treatment effects. Lastly, since the major monocular VEP signal is comparable with its putative binocular form (i.e., monocular ipsilateral + contralateral VEPs in a separate group,
Supplementary Figs. S2C, S2E), any underestimations of IOP-induced dysfunction from V1 (i.e., due to the ipsilateral contribution from the fellow control eye), will likely also be insignificant. This possibility is nevertheless taken in to account in the Discussion.