Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Documenta Ophthalmologica
Published in: Documenta Ophthalmologica 1/2017

01-08-2017 | Original Research Article

Gender-based normative values for pattern-reversal and flash visually evoked potentials under binocular and monocular stimulation in healthy adults

Authors: Patrícia de Freitas Dotto, Adriana Berezovsky, Paula Yuri Sacai, Daniel Martins Rocha, Solange Rios Salomão

Published in: Documenta Ophthalmologica | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To determine gender-based normative values for pattern-reversal (PR) and flash (F) visually evoked potentials (VEP) under binocular and monocular stimulation in healthy adults.

Methods

Healthy adults (age ≥18 years) were recruited among university employees and students. Inclusion criteria were absence of abnormalities in fundoscopy, tracking ability, stereopsis and pupillary reflexes; best-corrected visual acuity ≤.00 logMAR; and refractive error (spherical equivalent) from −6.00 to +6.00. Exclusion criteria were previous intraocular surgery, systemic and/or neurological disorders. Binocular and monocular tests were performed according to International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision standards for PRVEP (reversal rate = 1.9 Hz, checkerboard stimuli 15′ and 60′ at 100% contrast) and FVEP (3 cd s/m2, rate = 1 Hz). VEP parameters of amplitude (µV) and peak times (ms) were measured. Inter-ocular differences, inter-peak intervals (N135–N75) and binocular summation were determined.

Results

Fifty-four subjects (28 females; mean age = 40.4 ± 13.7 years; median = 40.0 years) were included. Mean P100 latencies for 15′ and 60′ stimuli were, respectively, 94.6 ± 4.7 ms and 96.1 ± 4.2 for women. Mean values of P100 latency for men were 97.4 ± 4.9 for 15′ and 97.7 ± 4.2 for 60′ stimuli. Larger mean P100 for 15′ checks was observed in women (12.8 ± 5.7 µV) than men (8.6 ± 2.5 µV) in PRVEP. Similar results were found for FVEP N2–P2 amplitudes (mean = 14.6 ± 4.9 for women and 9.8 ± 4.0 for men).

Conclusions

Gender-based normative values for PRVEP and FVEP were determined, with women disclosing higher responses than men for smaller stimuli in the visual pathway. The use of gender-based normative values in the analysis of clinical VEP data for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes is recommendable. Additional analysis including inter-peak intervals and binocular summation ratio might improve the diagnostic power of VEP.
Literature
1.
2.
Fahle M, Bach M (2006) Origin of the visual evoked potentials. In: Heckenlively JR, Arden GB (eds) Principles and practice of clinical electrophysiology of vision. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, pp 207–234
3.
4.
Halliday AM, McDonald WI, Mushin J (1972) Delayed visual evoked response in optic neuritis. Lancet 1:982–985CrossRefPubMed
5.
Tobimatsu S, Celesia GG (2006) Studies of human visual pathophysiology with visual evoked potentials. Clin Neurophysiol 117:1414–1433CrossRefPubMed
6.
Celesia GG (2006) Role of clinical neurophysiology in the diagnosis and management of visual disorders. Suppl Clin Neurophysiol 59:311–316CrossRefPubMed
7.
Di Russo F, Spinelli D (1999) Electrophysiological evidence for an early attentional mechanism in visual processing in humans. Vision Res 39:2975–2985CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
10.
11.
McCulloch DL, Skarf B (1991) Development of the human visual system: monocular and binocular pattern VEP latency. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 32:2372–2381PubMed
12.
Sokol S, Dobson V (1976) Pattern reversal visually evoked potentials in infants. Invest Ophthalmol 15:58–62PubMed
13.
Ejzenbaum F, Salomao SR, Berezovsky A, Waiswol M, Tartarella MB, Sacai PY, Pereira JM (2009) Amblyopia after unilateral infantile cataract extraction after six weeks of age. Arq Bras Oftalmol 72:645–649CrossRefPubMed
14.
Kothari R, Singh R, Singh S, Bokariya P (2013) Association of pattern reversal VEP parameters with the mean defect of Humphrey visual field in patients of primary open angle glaucoma. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol 57:123–131PubMed
15.
Verroiopoulos G, Nitoda E, Ladas ID, Antonakaki D, Moschos MM (2016) Ophthalmological assessment of OCT and electrophysiological changes in migraine patients. J Clin Neurophysiol 33:431–442CrossRefPubMed
16.
17.
Andrade EP, Sacai PY, Berezovsky A, Salomao SR (2007) Pattern-reversal visual evoked potential abnormalities in patients with defined multiple sclerosis. Arq Bras Oftalmol 70:943–948CrossRefPubMed
18.
Sacai PY, Salomao SR, Carelli V, Pereira JM, Belfort R Jr, Sadun AA, Berezovsky A (2010) Visual evoked potentials findings in non-affected subjects from a large Brazilian pedigree of 11778 Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy. Doc Ophthalmol 121:147–154. doi:10.​1007/​s10633-010-9241-2 CrossRefPubMed
19.
Brecejl J (2014) Visual electrophysiology in the clinical evaluation of optic neuritis, chiasmal tumours, achiasmia, and ocular albinism: an overview. Doc Ophthalmol 129:71–84CrossRef
20.
Celesia GG, Kaufman D, Cone S (1987) Effects of age and sex on pattern electroretinograms and visual evoked potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 68:161–171CrossRefPubMed
21.
Mitchell KW, Howe JW, Spencer SR (1987) Visual evoked potentials in the older population: age and gender effects. Clin Phys Physiol Meas 8:317–324CrossRefPubMed
22.
Kaneda Y, Nakayama H, Kagawa K, Furuta N, Ikuta T (1996) Sex differences in visual evoked potential and electroencephalogram of healthy adults. Tokushima J Exp Med 43:143–157PubMed
23.
Malcolm CA, McCulloch DL, Shepherd AJ (2002) Pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials in infants: gender differences during early visual maturation. Dev Med Child Neurol 44:345–351CrossRefPubMed
24.
Gregori B, Pro S, Bombelli F, La Riccia M, Accornero N (2006) Vep latency: sex and head size. Clin Neurophysiol 117:1154–1157CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
27.
Allison T, Wood CC, Goff WR (1983) Brain stem auditory, pattern-reversal visual, and short-latency somatosensory evoked potentials: latencies in relation to age, sex, and brain and body size. Electroencephal Clin Neurophysiol 55:619–636CrossRef
28.
La Marche JA, Dobson WR, Cohn NB, Dustman RE (1986) Amplitudes of visually evoked potentials to patterned stimuli: age and sex comparisons. Electroencephal Clin Neurophysiol 65:81–85CrossRef
29.
Guthkelch AN, Burslck D, Sclabassi RJ (1987) The relationship of the latency of the visual PIO0 wave to gender and head size. Electroencephal Clin Neurophysiol 68:219–222CrossRef
30.
Tandon OP, Sharma KN (1989) Visual evoked potential in young adults: a normative study. Ind J Physiol Pharmacol 55:247–252
31.
Kothari R, Bokariya P, Singh S, Narang P, Singh R (2013) Normative data of peak latencies of N70, N155 waves and inter-peak latency of pattern reversal visual evoked potentials in central Indian population. Int J Basic Appl Med Sci 3:180–185
32.
Felgueira RM, Guilhoto LMFF (2005) Estudo normativo do potencial evocado visual por padrão reverso. J Epil Clin Neurophysiol 11:171–175CrossRef
33.
Gupta S, Gupta G, Singh S (2013) Study of mechanism of binocular interaction in normal adults using pattern reversal visual evoked potentials. Indian J Basic Appl Med Res 3:88–97CrossRef
34.
35.
Gupta S, Gupta G, Deshpande VK (2016) Visual evoked potentials: impact of age, gender, head size and BMI. Int J Biom Adv Res 7:22–26. doi:10.​7439/​ijbar CrossRef
36.
37.
Ingalhalikar M, Smith A, Parker D, Satterthwaite TD, Elliott MA, Ruparel K, Hakonarson H, Gur RE, Gur RC, Verma R (2014) Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:823–828. doi:10.​1073/​pnas.​1316909110 CrossRefPubMed
38.
39.
40.
41.
di Summa A, Fusina S, Bertolasi L, Vicentini S, Perlini S, Bongiovanni LG, Polo A (1999) Mechanism of binocular interaction in refraction errors: study using pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials. Doc Ophthalmol 98:139–151CrossRefPubMed
42.
Penne A, Baraldi P, Fonda S, Ferrari F (1987) Incremental binocular amplitude of the pattern visual evoked potential during the first five months of life: electrophysiological evidence of the development of binocularity. Doc Ophthalmol 65:15–23CrossRefPubMed
43.
Markó K, Mikó-Baráth E, Kiss HJ, Török B, Jandó G (2012) Effects of luminance on dynamic random-dot correlogram evoked visual potentials. Perception 41(6):648–660CrossRefPubMed
44.
Apkarian PA, Nakayama K, Tyler CW (1981) Binocularity in the human visual evoked potential; facilitation, summation and suppression. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 51:32–48CrossRefPubMed
45.
Giuseppe N, Andrea F (1983) Binocular interaction in visual-evoked responses: summation, facilitation and inhibition in a clinical study of binocular vision. Ophthalmic Res 15:261–264CrossRefPubMed
46.
Leguire LE, Rogers GL, Bremer DL (1995) Flash visual evoked response binocular summation in normal subjects and in patients with early-onset esotropia before and after surgery. Doc Ophthalmol 89:277–286CrossRefPubMed
47.
Jasper HH (1958) The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol. 10:371–375
48.
49.
50.
Andrews TJ, Halpern SD, Purves D (1997) Correlated size variations in human visual cortex, lateral geniculate nucleus, and optic tract. J Neurosci 17:2859–2868PubMed
51.
52.
Zeki S, Watson JD, Lueck CJ, Friston KJ, Kennard C, Frackowiak RS (1991) A direct demonstration of functional specialization in human visual cortex. J Neurosci 11:641–649PubMed
53.
Emmerson-Hanover R, Shearer DE, Creel DJ, Dustman RE (1990) Pattern reversal evoked potentials: gender differences and age-related changes in amplitude and latency. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 92:93–101CrossRef
54.
Allison T, Hume AL, Wood CC, Goff WR (1984) Developmental and aging changes in somatosensory, auditory and visual evoked potential. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 58:14–24CrossRefPubMed
55.
Kuba M, Kremláček Langrová J, Kubová Z, Szanyi J, František V (2012) Aging effect in pattern, motion and cognitive visual evoked potentials. Vis Res 62:9–16CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Gender-based normative values for pattern-reversal and flash visually evoked potentials under binocular and monocular stimulation in healthy adults
Authors
Patrícia de Freitas Dotto
Adriana Berezovsky
Paula Yuri Sacai
Daniel Martins Rocha
Solange Rios Salomão
Publication date
01-08-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Documenta Ophthalmologica / Issue 1/2017
Print ISSN: 0012-4486
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2622
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-017-9594-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Documenta Ophthalmologica 1/2017 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

The changing shape of the ISCEV standard pattern onset VEP

Original Research Article

Ganglion cell loss in early glaucoma, as assessed by photopic negative response, pattern electroretinogram, and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography

Original Research Article

Wavelet decomposition analysis in the two-flash multifocal ERG in early glaucoma: a comparison to ganglion cell analysis and visual field

Original Research Article

Intensity response function of the photopic negative response (PhNR): effect of age and test–retest reliability

Clinical Case Report

Multimodal imaging and functional correlations identify unusual cases of macular retinal pigment epithelium hypopigmentation occurring without functional loss

Original Research Article

Correlation of macular structure and function in a boy with primary foveomacular retinitis and sequence of changes over 5 years