December 2002
Volume 43, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   December 2002
Effect of Sparseness and Dichoptic Presentation on Multifocal Visual Evoked Potentials
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • TL Maddess
    Visual Sciences Group Research School of Biological Sciences ANU Canberra Australia
  • R Ruseckaite
    Visual Sciences Group Research School of Biological Sciences ANU Canberra Australia
  • AC James
    Visual Sciences Group Research School of Biological Sciences ANU Canberra Australia
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships    T.L. Maddess, no company P; R. Ruseckaite, None; A.C. James, no company P.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science December 2002, Vol.43, 4737. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      TL Maddess, R Ruseckaite, AC James; Effect of Sparseness and Dichoptic Presentation on Multifocal Visual Evoked Potentials . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2002;43(13):4737.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: Multifocal methods typically modulate the contrast of checkerboard stimuli with binary psuedo-random sequences. The present work compares binary modulation sequences with two types of temporally sparse ternary stimuli. We also compared monocular and dichoptic stimulation. Methods: In the binary case the contrast of each checkerboard takes the values {-1,1}, the probability of being in either state being ½. In our ternary stimuli the contrasts are {-1, 0, 1}, where 0 indicates a blank field at the mean luminance (48 cd/m²). The two ternary stimuli differed in the probability of in the -1 or 1 state, these being ¼ or 1/16th. Thus in these sparse stimuli the monitor was blank for either ¾ or 14/16 of the time. Stimuli were presented simultaneously to 8 cortically scaled regions containing checkerboards presented around fixation. A liquid-crystal shutter provided dichoptic stimulation of the two eyes in interleaved frames at 50.5 Hz. We obtained 8 repeats of each 40 s stimulus condition. Results: A multiple regression fit ( F=114.6, p < 0.0000) showed that kernel amplitude was greatest for Sparse16 (5.40 ± 0.30 µV) and least for Binary (1.33 ± 0.27 µV). More than 85% of Sparse16 kernels were significant (peak ≷ 2.5 SE), compared with < 15% for the Binary peaks. Dichoptic presentation reduced Sparse16 kernels by 13% (-0.69 ± 0.22 µV) and Binary kernels by 37% (-0.49 ± 0.22 µV) Conclusion: Sparse stimuli appear to appeal to contrast gain control mechanisms[1] that enhance responses to briefly presented, low spatial frequency, stimuli producing larger and more reliable responses. Sparse stimulation provides increased accuracy, or reduced recording time, arising from larger kernel amplitudes. That combined with resistance to binocular rivalry effects appears to make dichoptic multifocal recording feasible. Dichoptic recording affords a better statistical basis for comparison of the responses from the two eyes. [1]Benardete EA, Kaplan E. Visual Neurosci. (1999): 16: 344-368.

Keywords: 394 electrophysiology: non-clinical • 395 electroretinography: clinical • 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.

×