 |
|
Visual Field Defects and Multifocal Visual Evoked Potentials
Evidence of a Linear Relationship
Donald C. Hood, PhD;
Vivienne C. Greenstein, PhD;
Jeffrey G. Odel, MD;
Xian Zhang, MS;
Robert Ritch, MD;
Jeffrey M. Liebmann, MD;
Jenny E. Hong, MD;
Candice S. Chen, MD;
Phamornsak Thienprasiddhi, MD
Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:1672-1681.
Objective To determine the relationship between spatially localized multifocal visual evoked potentials (mfVEPs) and Humphrey visual fields (HVFs) in patients with unilateral field defects.
Methods Humphrey visual fields and mfVEPs were obtained from 20 patients with unilateral field losses due to either ischemic optic neuropathy or glaucoma. Monocular mfVEPs were obtained for each eye. The amplitude of the mfVEP responses was calculated using root-mean-square and signal-noise ratio measures. Estimates of the HVF loss in the same regions of the field used for the mfVEP were obtained by interpolating the 24-2 HVF data.
Results Monocular mfVEP amplitude decreased with HVF loss, although small mfVEP signals were not uniquely associated with poor fields. On average, the monocular mfVEP was indistinguishable from noise for field losses between –5 and –10 dB, and good monocular mfVEP amplitudes were never associated with extensive visual field loss. The interocular ratio of the mfVEP amplitudes correlated well with the difference between the HVF values of the 2 eyes, and this correlation improved with increased signal-noise ratio.
Conclusions The monocular and interocular results were consistent with a linear relationship between the amplitude of the signal portion of the mfVEP response and linear HVF loss. One way to produce this relationship would be if both the signal in the mfVEP and linear HVF loss were linearly related to the percentage of local ganglion cells lost. The clinical limitations of the mfVEP technique can be understood by taking the signal-noise ratio, and the linear model proposed herein, into consideration.
From Departments of Psychology (Drs Hood, Hong, and Chen and Mr Zhang) and Ophthalmology (Drs Greenstein and Odel), Columbia University, and the New York Eye and Ear Infirmary (Drs Ritch, Liebmann, and Thienprasiddhi), New York, NY.
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Structure versus Function in Glaucoma: An Application of a Linear Model
Hood et al.
IOVS 2007;48:3662-3668.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
All in the timing
Winn
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2007;91:406-407.
FULL TEXT
Multifocal visual-evoked potential in unilateral compressive optic neuropathy
Semela et al.
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2007;91:445-448.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Correlation of the multifocal visual evoked potential and standard automated perimetry in compressive optic neuropathies.
Danesh-Meyer et al.
IOVS 2006;47:1458-1463.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Effect of Experimental Glaucoma in Primates on Oscillatory Potentials of the Slow-Sequence mfERG
Rangaswamy et al.
IOVS 2006;47:753-767.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Pattern Electroretinogram in Glaucoma Patients with Confirmed Visual Field Deficits
Hood et al.
IOVS 2005;46:2411-2418.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Clinical Application of Objective Perimetry Using Multifocal Visual Evoked Potentials in Glaucoma Practice
Graham et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123:729-739.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Test-Retest Variability of Multifocal Visual Evoked Potential and SITA Standard Perimetry in Glaucoma
Bjerre et al.
IOVS 2004;45:4035-4040.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Method for Comparing Electrophysiological, Psychophysical, and Structural Measures of Glaucomatous Damage
Greenstein et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122:1276-1284.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Perimetric Defects and Ganglion Cell Damage: Interpreting Linear Relations Using a Two-Stage Neural Model
Swanson et al.
IOVS 2004;45:466-472.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Detecting Early to Mild Glaucomatous Damage: A Comparison of the Multifocal VEP and Automated Perimetry
Hood et al.
IOVS 2004;45:492-498.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
