Download fulltext HTML
1.
Mirzaee Saba L, Hashemi H, Jafarzadehpour E, Mirzajani A, Yekta A, Jafarzadehpour A, Zarei A, Nabovati P, Khabazkhoob M. P100 Wave Latency and Amplitude in Visual Evoked Potential Records in Different Visual Quadrants of Normal Individuals. JOVR [Internet]. 2023Apr.19 [cited 2024May2];18(2):175–181. Available from: https://knepublishing.com/index.php/JOVR/article/view/13184

https://doi.org/10.18502/jovr.v18i2.13184

statistics

  • 427 Abstract Views
  • 267 PDF Views
  • 0 HTML Views

authors

  • Leila Mirzaee Saba

    Leila Mirzaee Saba

    Noor Research Center for Ophthalmic Epidemiology, Noor Eye Hospital, Tehran, Iran
  • Hassan Hashemi

    Hassan Hashemi

    Noor Ophthalmology Research Center, Noor Eye Hospital, Tehran, Iran
  • Ebrahim Jafarzadehpour

    Ebrahim Jafarzadehpour

    Rehabilitation Research Center, Department of Optometry, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Ali Mirzajani

    Ali Mirzajani

    Rehabilitation Research Center, Department of Optometry, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Abbasali Yekta

    Abbasali Yekta

    Refractive Errors Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
  • Abolfazl Jafarzadehpour

    Abolfazl Jafarzadehpour

    Noor Research Center for Ophthalmic Epidemiology, Noor Eye Hospital, Tehran, Iran
  • Arghavan Zarei

    Arghavan Zarei

    Noor Ophthalmology Research Center, Noor Eye Hospital, Tehran, Iran
  • Payam Nabovati

    Payam Nabovati

    Rehabilitation Research Center, Department of Optometry, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Mehdi Khabazkhoob

    Mehdi Khabazkhoob

    Department of Basic Sciences, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Published Date

  • Apr 19, 2023
This journal is publishing all the articles under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0.

P100 Wave Latency and Amplitude in Visual Evoked Potential Records in Different Visual Quadrants of Normal Individuals

Journal of Ophthalmic and Vision Research (JOVR) / April–June 2023, Volume 18, Issue 2 / Pages 175–181

Abstract

Purpose: Assessment of the pattern visual evoked potential (PVEP) responses in different areas of visual fields in individuals with normal vision.


Methods: This study was conducted on 80 eyes of normal subjects aged 18–35 years. All participants underwent refraction and visual acuity examination. Visual evoked potential (VEP) responses were recorded in different areas of field. The repeated measure test was used to compare the P100 latency and amplitude of PVEP among different areas.


Results: The repeated measures analysis of variance showed a statistically significant difference among different areas in terms of amplitude and latency of P100 (P = 0.002 and P < 0.001, respectively). According to the results, the highest and lowest amplitude of P100 was observed in inferior-nasal and superior areas, respectively. The highest and lowest latency of P100 was related to the temporal and inferior-nasal areas, respectively.


Conclusion: This study partially revealed the details of local PVEP distribution in the visual field and there was a significant difference in the amplitude and latency of PVEP wave in different areas of the visual field.

Keywords:

Amplitude, Latency, Normal Vision, Pattern Reversal, Visual Evoked Potential, Visual Field

References
1. Asakawa K, Shoji N, Ishikawa H, Shimizu KJCo. New approach for the glaucoma detection with pupil perimetry. Clin Ophthalmol 2010;4:617.

2. Sample PA, Bosworth CF, Blumenthal EZ, Girkin C, Weinreb RN. Visual function-specific perimetry for indirect comparison of different ganglion cell populations in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000;41:1783–1790.

3. Jampel HD, Singh K, Lin SC, Chen TC, Francis BA, Hodapp E, et al. Assessment of visual function in glaucoma: A report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2011;118:986–1002.

4. Hood DC, Greenstein VC, Odel JG, Zhang X, Ritch R, Liebmann JM, et al. Visual field defects and multifocal visual evoked potentials: Evidence of a linear relationship. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:1672–1681.

5. Graham SL, Klistorner A, Grigg JR, Billson FA. Objective perimetry in glaucoma: Recent advances with multifocal stimuli. Surv Ophthalmol 1999;43:S199–S209.

6. Klistorner A, Graham SL, Martins A, Grigg JR, Arvind H, Kumar RS, et al. Multifocal blue-on-yellow visual evoked potentials in early glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2007;114:1613–1621.

7. Goldberg I, Graham SL, Klistorner AI. Multifocal objective perimetry in the detection of glaucomatous field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 2002;133:29–39.

8. Hood DC, Greenstein VC. Multifocal VEP and ganglion cell damage: Applications and limitations for the study of glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res 2003;22:201–251.

9. Klistorner AI, Graham SL, Grigg J, Balachandran C. Objective perimetry using the multifocal visual evoked potential in central visual pathway lesions. Br J Ophthalmol 2005;89:739–744.

10. Brigell M, Bach M, Barber C, Kawasaki K, Kooijman A. Guidelines for calibration of stimulus and recording parameters used in clinical electrophysiology of vision. Doc Ophthalmol 1998;95:1–14.

11. Yu MZ, Brown BJO, Optics P. Variation of topographic visually evoked potentials across the visual field. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1997;17:25–31.

12. Odom JV, Bach M, Brigell M, Holder GE, McCulloch DL, Mizota A, et al. ISCEV standard for clinical visual evoked potentials: (2016 update). Doc Ophthalmol 2016;133:1–9.

13. Lam BL. Electrophysiology of vision: Clinical testing and applications. CRC Press; 2005.

14. Silveira LC, Perry VH. The topography of magnocellular projecting ganglion cells (M-ganglion cells) in the primate retina. Neuroscience 1991;40:217–237.

15. Baseler HA, Sutter EE. M and P components of the VEP and their visual field distribution. Vision Res 1997;37:675– 690.

16. DeYoe EA, Carman GJ, Bandettini P, Glickman S, Wieser J, Cox R, et al. Mapping striate and extrastriate visual areas in human cerebral cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1996;93:2382–2386.

17. Horton JC, Hoyt WF. The representation of the visual field in human striate cortex: A revision of the classic Holmes map. Arch Ophthalmol 1991;109:816–824.

18. Michael WF, Halliday AM. Differences between the occipital distribution of upper and lower field patternevoked responses in man. Brain Res 1971;32:311–324.

19. Snell RS. Clinical neuroanatomy. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2010.

20. Skrandies W. Brain mapping of visual evoked activitytopographical and functional components. Acta Neurol Taiwan 2005;14:164–178.

21. Heckenlively JR, Arden GB. Principles and practice of clinical electrophysiology of vision. MIT Press; 2006.

22. Curcio CA, Allen KA. Topography of ganglion cells in human retina. J Comp Neurol 1990;300:5–25.

23. Croner LJ, Kaplan E. Receptive fields of P and M ganglion cells across the primate retina. Vision Res 1995;35:7–24.

24. Miller NR, Walsh FB, Hoyt WF. Walsh and Hoyt’s clinical neuro-ophthalmology. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005.