December 2002
Volume 43, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   December 2002
A Comparison of Multifocal Visual Evoked Potentials (mfVEP) Recorded With Different Electrode Positions
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • AE Gallagher
    Psychology Department Columbia University New York NY
  • CS Chen
    New York NY
  • DC Hood
    New York NY
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   A.E. Gallagher, None; C.S. Chen , None; D.C. Hood , None. Grant Identification: NIH/NEI EY02115
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science December 2002, Vol.43, 2172. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      AE Gallagher, CS Chen, DC Hood; A Comparison of Multifocal Visual Evoked Potentials (mfVEP) Recorded With Different Electrode Positions . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2002;43(13):2172.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: To compare multifocal visual evoked potentials (mfVEP) recorded with three sets of electrode positions. Methods: Three mfVEPs were recorded from the right eye of 10 subjects (mean age 29+/-12 yrs) with no known visual abnormalities. For one set of positions (Hetal [1]), the electrodes were held in place with wrap while the other two configurations (G&K and G&Kinv) used an electrode holder (ObjectiVision, Sydney, Australia) [2]. The three configurations were: Hetal (inion (I), 4 cm above I, and 1 cm up and 4 cm to the right and left of I), G&K (4.5 cm below I, 3 cm above I, and 4 cm to the right and left of I), and the G&Kinv (G&K electrode holder inverted, i.e. 4.5 cm above I and 3 cm below I). Pattern-reversed mfVEPs were recorded using a 60-sector stimulus array (Dart Board 60 With Pattern, EDI). The records were amplified with cutoffs at 3 and 100 Hz and filtered offline with a FFT lowpass filter (35 Hz). Within each session, two 7-minute recordings were obtained. The three channels of recordings were obtained simultaneously with three additional channels derived. A signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was determined for each of the 60 monocular responses by dividing the root mean square (RMS) of a signal window (45 to 150 ms) by the mean RMS of the 60-noise windows (325 to 430 ms) for each subject. For each subject, the best channel was also calculated for each of the 60 locations by choosing the channel with the largest SNR. Results: For the midline channel, the mean SNRs were 2.4 (G&Kinv), 2.3 (Hetal), and 1.5 (G&K). The largest SNR was obtained with the Hetal configuration for 6/10 of the subjects. For the best channel, the mean SNRs were 3.6 (Hetal), 3.0 (G&Kinv), and 1.8 (G&K). The largest SNR was obtained with the Hetal configuration for 7/10 subjects. Using the midline channel, analysis of the mean SNR values of the upper hemifield show that the G&Kinv configuration produced the largest mean SNR (2.3), while the mean SNRs for Hetal and G&K were 2.2 and 1.5, respectively. Conclusions: From anatomical considerations, we know that one electrode configuration will not be ideal for everyone [3]. However, either the Hetal or the G&Kinv configuration appears preferable to the G&K configuration. 1. Hood et al (in press) Doc. Ophth 2. Klistorner & Graham, Ophthal, 2000 3. Hood & Zhang (2000) Doc. Ophth.

Keywords: 393 electrophysiology: clinical • 624 visual fields • 487 neuro-ophthalmology: optic nerve 
×
×

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.

×