June 2021
Volume 62, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2021
Evaluation of Innovative SSVEP Stimulation Patterns for Neuro-Ophthalmology
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Simon Stock
    Karlsruher Institut fur Technologie, Karlsruhe, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
  • Marius Gerdes
    Karlsruher Institut fur Technologie, Karlsruhe, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
  • Markus Schinle
    Karlsruher Institut fur Technologie, Karlsruhe, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
  • Julia Veloso de Oliveira
    Karlsruher Institut fur Technologie, Karlsruhe, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
  • Lars Hauptmann
    Karlsruher Institut fur Technologie, Karlsruhe, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
  • Lucas Martini
    Karlsruher Institut fur Technologie, Karlsruhe, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
  • Wilhelm Stork
    Karlsruher Institut fur Technologie, Karlsruhe, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Simon Stock, None; Marius Gerdes, None; Markus Schinle, None; Julia Veloso de Oliveira, None; Lars Hauptmann, None; Lucas Martini, None; Wilhelm Stork, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2021, Vol.62, 2391. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Simon Stock, Marius Gerdes, Markus Schinle, Julia Veloso de Oliveira, Lars Hauptmann, Lucas Martini, Wilhelm Stork; Evaluation of Innovative SSVEP Stimulation Patterns for Neuro-Ophthalmology. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2021;62(8):2391.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Steady-State Visually Evoked Potentials (SSVEPs) are the brain's response to periodical optical stimuli. They are great for analyzing and investigating the function of the whole visual system. No conscious patient feedback is required.
We looked at variations of conventional checkerboard patterns to determine how onset/reversal, superimposed noise, or pictures of faces can improve the elicited signals' magnitude. The resulting comparisons may be used to improve existing SSVEP-based procedures using novel types of stimuli.

Methods : Using our custom system, we designed two stimuli sets. Set 1 using checker and faces (7s) and set 2 using dartboard, checker, and faces (6s), both at 7.5Hz. The sets were shown to two groups of 5 participants each (age: 20-30). The resulting reactions to the SSVEP were recorded using an 8-channel EEG (500 Hz) with electrodes positioned on the occiput [P07,O1,Oz,O2,P08,P03,P04,Fz]. The data was analyzed using the Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA) calculated over the stimulation window using the stimulation frequency and harmonics. Plots represent the mean value of all subjects in the set for the CCA.

Results : Set 1 shows a significant increase in evocation when using pattern onset instead of reversal. Showing faces instead of checkers lead to a slightly increased response. Set 2 indicates that cartoon characters elicit a stronger response than a checker pattern. Through the addition of noise, the response increased at low levels but decreased at higher levels.

Conclusions : SSVEP-based assessment of neuro-visual functions has immense potential in ophthalmology. However, checkerboard stimulations do not necessarily provide the best responses. The addition of low-level noise to the stimuli might improve the generation of SSVEPs in participants. Higher-level stimulation patterns like faces could improve the responses even further.

We suggest that Researchers in Neuro-Ophthalmology consider those or similar stimulation paradigms to improve SSVEP-based objective assessment methods. Especially stimulation with more complex structures like faces could lead to promising results.

This is a 2021 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.

 

Comparison of checkers and faces onset (a,c) and reversal (b,d). Influence of noise (e,f,g,h) on pattern onset.

Comparison of checkers and faces onset (a,c) and reversal (b,d). Influence of noise (e,f,g,h) on pattern onset.

 

Comparison between checkerboard and faces (pattern onset).

Comparison between checkerboard and faces (pattern onset).

×
×

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.

×