April 2011
Volume 52, Issue 14
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2011
Effect of Different Stimulus Configurations on Visually Evoked Potential (VEP) Amplitude
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Naveen K. Yadav
    Vision Sciences, SUNY, College of Optometry, New York, New York
  • Diana P. Ludlam
    Vision Sciences, SUNY College of Optometry, New York, New York
  • Kenneth J. Ciuffreda
    Vision Sciences, SUNY College of Optometry, New York, New York
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Naveen K. Yadav, None; Diana P. Ludlam, None; Kenneth J. Ciuffreda, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  DIOPSYS Inc., Pine Brook, New Jersey, USA
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2011, Vol.52, 6083. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Naveen K. Yadav, Diana P. Ludlam, Kenneth J. Ciuffreda; Effect of Different Stimulus Configurations on Visually Evoked Potential (VEP) Amplitude. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2011;52(14):6083.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose: : To assess the effect of different stimulus configurations on the amplitude of the pattern visual evoked potential (VEP).

Methods: : VEP amplitudes were assessed for three stimulus configurations: (1) central circular stimulus increasing incrementally in radius from 0.5 to 7.5 degrees in 6 steps, (2) central annular stimulus with the inner radius increasing incrementally from 0.5 to 7.5 degrees in 6 steps, and (3) simulated hemi-field (right, left) and quadrant (upper right, upper left, lower right, lower left) visual field defects. Five visually-normal adult subjects (ages 21 to 68 years) with 20/20 corrected visual acuity were tested using each stimulus configuration. The DIOPSYS NOVA - TR VEP system was used, with 3 electrode placement (ISCEV standard). Subjects viewed the test field binocularly at a distance of 1 meter. A checkerboard test pattern (64 X 64 black and white checks, 85% contrast, 64 candela per square meter luminance, and 2 Hz temporal frequency) was used. 5 test trials for each stimulus configuration were conducted, each on a separate day to assess response repeatability, in a counterbalanced manner. Changes in the group mean amplitude were used for the primary analysis.

Results: : For the circular stimulus, there was a linear increase in the amplitude (y = 0.776 x + 2.14) (r = 0.989) with increase in stimulus area. Similarly, for the annular stimulus, there was a linear decrease in the amplitude (y = -0.796 x + 16.76) (r = 0.980) with decrease in stimulus area. For the simulated hemi and quadrant visual field defects, response amplitude was significantly greater for the simulated quadrant than the hemi-field defect, but it was only linearly additive in 3 of the 5 subjects. For nearly all changes in stimulus configuration, there was no significant change in latency.

Conclusions: : The results of this study suggested linear summation of the cone-mediated VEP response to the circular and annular stimulus area changes. The quadrant field findings suggested greater individual variability than for the other 2 stimulus configurations. The results of the study will be used to develop protocols for objectively assessing residual visual field functionality in ocular and neurological conditions such as, glaucoma, macular degeneration, retinitis pigmentosa, stroke, and traumatic brain injury.

Keywords: electrophysiology: clinical • visual fields • neuro-ophthalmology: cortical function/rehabilitation 

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.