Cargando…

Influence of visual angle on pattern reversal visual evoked potentials

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to find whether the visual evoked potential (VEP) latencies and amplitude are altered with different visual angles in healthy adult volunteers or not and to determine the visual angle which is the optimum and most appropriate among a wide range of check sizes for t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kothari, Ruchi, Singh, Smita, Singh, Ramji, Shukla, A. K., Bokariya, Pradeep
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4220397/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25378875
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-620X.142593
_version_ 1782342726587514880
author Kothari, Ruchi
Singh, Smita
Singh, Ramji
Shukla, A. K.
Bokariya, Pradeep
author_facet Kothari, Ruchi
Singh, Smita
Singh, Ramji
Shukla, A. K.
Bokariya, Pradeep
author_sort Kothari, Ruchi
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to find whether the visual evoked potential (VEP) latencies and amplitude are altered with different visual angles in healthy adult volunteers or not and to determine the visual angle which is the optimum and most appropriate among a wide range of check sizes for the reliable interpretation of pattern reversal VEPs (PRVEPs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study was conducted on 40 healthy volunteers. The subjects were divided into two groups. One group consisted of 20 individuals (nine males and 11 females) in the age range of 25-57 years and they were exposed to checks subtending a visual angle of 90, 120, and 180 minutes of arc. Another group comprised of 20 individuals (10 males and 10 females) in the age range of 36-60 years and they were subjected to checks subtending a visual angle of 15, 30, and 120 minutes of arc. The stimulus configuration comprised of the transient pattern reversal method in which a black and white checker board is generated (full field) on a VEP Monitor by an Evoked Potential Recorder (RMS EMG. EPMARK II). The statistical analysis was done by One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) using EPI INFO 6. RESULTS: In Group I, the maximum (max.) P100 latency of 98.8 ± 4.7 and the max. P100 amplitude of 10.05 ± 3.1 μV was obtained with checks of 90 minutes. In Group II, the max. P100 latency of 105.19 ± 4.75 msec as well as the max. P100 amplitude of 8.23 ± 3.30 μV was obtained with 15 minutes. The min. P100 latency in both the groups was obtained with checks of 120 minutes while the min. P100 amplitude was obtained with 180 minutes. A statistically significant difference was derived between means of P100 latency for 15 and 30 minutes with reference to its value for 120 minutes and between the mean value of P100 amplitude for 120 minutes and that of 90 and 180 minutes. CONCLUSION: Altering the size of stimulus (visual angle) has an effect on the PRVEP parameters. Our study found that the 120 is the appropriate (and optimal) check size that can be used for accurate interpretation of PRVEPs. This will help in better assessment of the optic nerve function and integrity of anterior visual pathways.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4220397
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42203972014-11-06 Influence of visual angle on pattern reversal visual evoked potentials Kothari, Ruchi Singh, Smita Singh, Ramji Shukla, A. K. Bokariya, Pradeep Oman J Ophthalmol Original Article PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to find whether the visual evoked potential (VEP) latencies and amplitude are altered with different visual angles in healthy adult volunteers or not and to determine the visual angle which is the optimum and most appropriate among a wide range of check sizes for the reliable interpretation of pattern reversal VEPs (PRVEPs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study was conducted on 40 healthy volunteers. The subjects were divided into two groups. One group consisted of 20 individuals (nine males and 11 females) in the age range of 25-57 years and they were exposed to checks subtending a visual angle of 90, 120, and 180 minutes of arc. Another group comprised of 20 individuals (10 males and 10 females) in the age range of 36-60 years and they were subjected to checks subtending a visual angle of 15, 30, and 120 minutes of arc. The stimulus configuration comprised of the transient pattern reversal method in which a black and white checker board is generated (full field) on a VEP Monitor by an Evoked Potential Recorder (RMS EMG. EPMARK II). The statistical analysis was done by One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) using EPI INFO 6. RESULTS: In Group I, the maximum (max.) P100 latency of 98.8 ± 4.7 and the max. P100 amplitude of 10.05 ± 3.1 μV was obtained with checks of 90 minutes. In Group II, the max. P100 latency of 105.19 ± 4.75 msec as well as the max. P100 amplitude of 8.23 ± 3.30 μV was obtained with 15 minutes. The min. P100 latency in both the groups was obtained with checks of 120 minutes while the min. P100 amplitude was obtained with 180 minutes. A statistically significant difference was derived between means of P100 latency for 15 and 30 minutes with reference to its value for 120 minutes and between the mean value of P100 amplitude for 120 minutes and that of 90 and 180 minutes. CONCLUSION: Altering the size of stimulus (visual angle) has an effect on the PRVEP parameters. Our study found that the 120 is the appropriate (and optimal) check size that can be used for accurate interpretation of PRVEPs. This will help in better assessment of the optic nerve function and integrity of anterior visual pathways. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC4220397/ /pubmed/25378875 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-620X.142593 Text en Copyright: © 2014 Kothari R. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Kothari, Ruchi
Singh, Smita
Singh, Ramji
Shukla, A. K.
Bokariya, Pradeep
Influence of visual angle on pattern reversal visual evoked potentials
title Influence of visual angle on pattern reversal visual evoked potentials
title_full Influence of visual angle on pattern reversal visual evoked potentials
title_fullStr Influence of visual angle on pattern reversal visual evoked potentials
title_full_unstemmed Influence of visual angle on pattern reversal visual evoked potentials
title_short Influence of visual angle on pattern reversal visual evoked potentials
title_sort influence of visual angle on pattern reversal visual evoked potentials
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4220397/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25378875
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-620X.142593
work_keys_str_mv AT kothariruchi influenceofvisualangleonpatternreversalvisualevokedpotentials
AT singhsmita influenceofvisualangleonpatternreversalvisualevokedpotentials
AT singhramji influenceofvisualangleonpatternreversalvisualevokedpotentials
AT shuklaak influenceofvisualangleonpatternreversalvisualevokedpotentials
AT bokariyapradeep influenceofvisualangleonpatternreversalvisualevokedpotentials