Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T18:21:48.394Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Orientation-Specific Visual Evoked Potential Deficits in Multiple Sclerosis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

Stuart G. Coupland  and
Trevor H. Kirkham
Stuart G. Coupland
Affiliation:
Departments of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Ophthalmology, McGill University, and the Department of Neuro-Ophthalmology at the Montreal Neurological Institute
Trevor H. Kirkham*
Affiliation:
Departments of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Ophthalmology, McGill University, and the Department of Neuro-Ophthalmology at the Montreal Neurological Institute
*
Department of Neuro-Ophthalmology, Montreal. Neurological Hospital, 3801 University #201”, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. H3A 2B4
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary:

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Checkerboard pattern reversal visual evoked potentials (VEPs) have proved useful in the confirmation of optic nerve disease in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Recently, evidence of orientation-specific loss in contrast sensitivity and the presence of orientation-specific visual evoked potential (VEP) deficits in MS patients has been obtained using sinusoidal gratings as stimuli. This study reports the presence of orientation-specific VEP delay in MS using the conventional checkerboard pattern presented in two orientations: normally oriented (check condition) or diagonally oriented (diamond condition).

Peak latency values of the N70 and P100 components of the VEP were statistically analyzed using appropriate ANOVA and nonparametric statistics. As a group MS patients showed significant VEP delays under check and diamond pattern conditions. However, individual subject analysis revealed that about 20% of the MS population show VEP delay to only one pattern orientation. It was shown that by including a diamond pattern condition the diagnostic yield of VEP delay in these clinically definite MS patients was increased 11% over that obtained with check stimulation alone.

Type
Hypothesis
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , August 1982 , pp. 331 - 337
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation 1982

References

Bodis-Wollner, I., Hendley, C.D., Mylin, L.H., Thornton, J. (1979). Visual evoked potentials and the visuogram in multiple sclerosis. Ann. Neurol. 5: 40–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Camisa, J., Mylin, L.H. and Bodis-Wollner, I. (1981). The effect of stimulus orientation on the visual evoked potential in multiple sclerosis. Ann. Neurol. 10: 532–539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cant, B.R., Hume, A.L. and Shaw, N.A. (1978). Effects of luminance on the pattern visual evoked potential in multiple sclerosis. Electroenceph. Clin. Neurophysiol. 45: 496–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coupland, S.G. and Kirkham, T.H. (1982). Flash electroretinogram abnormalities in patients with clinically definite multiple sclerosis. Canad. J. Neurol. Sci. 9: 325–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devalois, K.K., Devalois, R.L. and Yund, E.W. (1979). Response of striate cortical cells to grating and checkerboard patterns. J. Physiol. 291:483–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, A.M., Mcdonald, W.I. and Mushin, J. (1972). Delayed visual evoked responses in optic neuritis. Lancet 1: 982–985.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halliday, A.M. (1981). Visual evoked potentials in demyelinating disease. In Demyelinating disease: basic and clinical electrophysiology. Ed. Waxman, S.G. and Ritchie, J.M.Raven Press. New York, pp. 201–215.Google Scholar
Harter, M.R. and White, C.T. (1968). Effects of contour sharpness and check size on visually evoked potentials. Vision Res. 8: 701–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubel, D.H. and Wiesel, T.N. (1968). Receptive fields and functional architecture of monkey striate cortex. J. Physiol. 195: 215–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirkham, T.H. and Coupland, S.G. (1981a). Multiple regression analysis of diagnostic predictors in optic nerve disease. Canad. J. Neurol. Sci. 8: 67–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirkham, T.H. and Coupland, S.G. (1981b). An electroretinal and visual evoked potential study in Friedreich’s ataxia. Canad. J. Neurol. Sci. 8: 289–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mcdonald, W.I. and Halliday, A.M. (1977). Diagnosis and classification of multiple sclerosis. Brit. Med. Bull. 33: 4–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ochs, A.L. and Aminoff, M.J. (1980). Visual evoked potentials elicited by circular grating. Arch. Neurol. 37: 308–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, D.M. and Salzen, E.A. (1977). Latency changes in the human visual evoked response to sinusoidal gratings. Vision Res. 18:1201–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regan, D., Whitlock, J.A., Murray, T.J. and Beverley, K.I. (1980). Orientation specific losses of contrast sensitivity in multiple sclerosis. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 19:324–328.Google ScholarPubMed
Shahrokhi, F., Chiappa, K.H. and Young, R.W. (1978). Pattern shift visual evoked responses. Two hundred patients with optic neuritis and/or multiple sclerosis. Arch. Neurol. 35:65–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill Publishers, New York.Google Scholar