Cargando…

Effects of refractive errors on visual evoked magnetic fields

BACKGROUND: The latency and amplitude of visual evoked cortical responses are known to be affected by refractive states, suggesting that they may be used as an objective index of refractive errors. In order to establish an easy and reliable method for this purpose, we herein examined the effects of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Suzuki, Masaya, Nagae, Mizuki, Nagata, Yuko, Kumagai, Naoya, Inui, Koji, Kakigi, Ryusuke
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4640416/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26553029
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-015-0152-6
_version_ 1782400071648673792
author Suzuki, Masaya
Nagae, Mizuki
Nagata, Yuko
Kumagai, Naoya
Inui, Koji
Kakigi, Ryusuke
author_facet Suzuki, Masaya
Nagae, Mizuki
Nagata, Yuko
Kumagai, Naoya
Inui, Koji
Kakigi, Ryusuke
author_sort Suzuki, Masaya
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The latency and amplitude of visual evoked cortical responses are known to be affected by refractive states, suggesting that they may be used as an objective index of refractive errors. In order to establish an easy and reliable method for this purpose, we herein examined the effects of refractive errors on visual evoked magnetic fields (VEFs). METHODS: Binocular VEFs following the presentation of a simple grating of 0.16 cd/m(2) in the lower visual field were recorded in 12 healthy volunteers and compared among four refractive states: 0D, +1D, +2D, and +4D, by using plus lenses. RESULTS: The low-luminance visual stimulus evoked a main MEG response at approximately 120 ms (M100) that reversed its polarity between the upper and lower visual field stimulations and originated from the occipital midline area. When refractive errors were induced by plus lenses, the latency of M100 increased, while its amplitude decreased with an increase in power of the lens. Differences from the control condition (+0D) were significant for all three lenses examined. The results of dipole analyses showed that evoked fields for the control (+0D) condition were explainable by one dipole in the primary visual cortex (V1), while other sources, presumably in V3 or V6, slightly contributed to shape M100 for the +2D or +4D condition. CONCLUSIONS: The present results showed that the latency and amplitude of M100 are both useful indicators for assessing refractive states. The contribution of neural sources other than V1 to M100 was modest under the 0D and +1D conditions. By considering the nature of the activity of M100 including its high sensitivity to a spatial frequency and lower visual field dominance, a simple low-luminance grating stimulus at an optimal spatial frequency in the lower visual field appears appropriate for obtaining data on high S/N ratios and reducing the load on subjects.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4640416
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46404162015-11-11 Effects of refractive errors on visual evoked magnetic fields Suzuki, Masaya Nagae, Mizuki Nagata, Yuko Kumagai, Naoya Inui, Koji Kakigi, Ryusuke BMC Ophthalmol Research Article BACKGROUND: The latency and amplitude of visual evoked cortical responses are known to be affected by refractive states, suggesting that they may be used as an objective index of refractive errors. In order to establish an easy and reliable method for this purpose, we herein examined the effects of refractive errors on visual evoked magnetic fields (VEFs). METHODS: Binocular VEFs following the presentation of a simple grating of 0.16 cd/m(2) in the lower visual field were recorded in 12 healthy volunteers and compared among four refractive states: 0D, +1D, +2D, and +4D, by using plus lenses. RESULTS: The low-luminance visual stimulus evoked a main MEG response at approximately 120 ms (M100) that reversed its polarity between the upper and lower visual field stimulations and originated from the occipital midline area. When refractive errors were induced by plus lenses, the latency of M100 increased, while its amplitude decreased with an increase in power of the lens. Differences from the control condition (+0D) were significant for all three lenses examined. The results of dipole analyses showed that evoked fields for the control (+0D) condition were explainable by one dipole in the primary visual cortex (V1), while other sources, presumably in V3 or V6, slightly contributed to shape M100 for the +2D or +4D condition. CONCLUSIONS: The present results showed that the latency and amplitude of M100 are both useful indicators for assessing refractive states. The contribution of neural sources other than V1 to M100 was modest under the 0D and +1D conditions. By considering the nature of the activity of M100 including its high sensitivity to a spatial frequency and lower visual field dominance, a simple low-luminance grating stimulus at an optimal spatial frequency in the lower visual field appears appropriate for obtaining data on high S/N ratios and reducing the load on subjects. BioMed Central 2015-11-09 /pmc/articles/PMC4640416/ /pubmed/26553029 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-015-0152-6 Text en © Suzuki et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Suzuki, Masaya
Nagae, Mizuki
Nagata, Yuko
Kumagai, Naoya
Inui, Koji
Kakigi, Ryusuke
Effects of refractive errors on visual evoked magnetic fields
title Effects of refractive errors on visual evoked magnetic fields
title_full Effects of refractive errors on visual evoked magnetic fields
title_fullStr Effects of refractive errors on visual evoked magnetic fields
title_full_unstemmed Effects of refractive errors on visual evoked magnetic fields
title_short Effects of refractive errors on visual evoked magnetic fields
title_sort effects of refractive errors on visual evoked magnetic fields
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4640416/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26553029
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-015-0152-6
work_keys_str_mv AT suzukimasaya effectsofrefractiveerrorsonvisualevokedmagneticfields
AT nagaemizuki effectsofrefractiveerrorsonvisualevokedmagneticfields
AT nagatayuko effectsofrefractiveerrorsonvisualevokedmagneticfields
AT kumagainaoya effectsofrefractiveerrorsonvisualevokedmagneticfields
AT inuikoji effectsofrefractiveerrorsonvisualevokedmagneticfields
AT kakigiryusuke effectsofrefractiveerrorsonvisualevokedmagneticfields