Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T06:11:01.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimization of Visual Evoked Potential (VEP) Recording Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2014

Rustum Karanjia ,
Donald G. Brunet  and
Martin W. ten Hove
Rustum Karanjia
Affiliation:
Department of Ophthalmology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Donald G. Brunet
Affiliation:
Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Martin W. ten Hove*
Affiliation:
Department of Ophthalmology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
*
Departments of Ophthalmology and Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, 166 Brock Street, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 5G2, Canada.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.
Objective:

To explore the influence of environmental conditions on pattern visual evoked potential (VEP) recordings.

Methods:

Fourteen subjects with no known ocular pathology were recruited for the study. In an attempt to optimize the recording conditions, VEP recordings were performed in both the seated and recumbent positions. Comparisons were made between recordings using either LCD or CRT displays and recordings obtained in silence or with quiet background music. Paired recordings (in which only one variable was changed) were analyzed for changes in P100 latency, RMS noise, and variability.

Results:

Baseline RMS noise demonstrated a significant decrease in the variability during the first 50msec accompanied by a 73% decrease in recording time for recumbent position when compared to the seated position (p<0.05). Visual evoked potentials recorded using LCD monitors demonstrated a significant increase in the P100 latency when compared to CRT recordings in the same subjects. The addition of background music did not affect the amount of RMS noise during the first 50msec of the recordings.

Conclusion:

This study demonstrates that the use of the recumbent position increases patient comfort and improves the signal to noise ratio. In contrast, the addition of background music to relax the patient did not improve the recording signal. Furthermore, the study illustrates the importance of avoiding low-contrast visual stimulation patterns obtained with LCD as they lead to higher latencies resulting in false positive recordings. These findings are important when establishing or modifying a pattern VEP recording protocol.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 89 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2009

References

1.Guideline 9B: Guidelines on visual evoked potentials. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2006 Apr;23(2):138–56.Google Scholar
2.Odom, JV, Bach, M, Barber, C, Brigell, M, Marmor, MF, Tormene, AP, et al.Visual evoked potentials standard (2004). Doc Ophthalmol. 2004 Mar;108(2):115–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Weinstein, GW, Odom, JV, Cavender, S.Visually evoked potentials and electroretinography in neurologic evaluation. Neurol Clin. 1991 Feb;9(1):225–42.Google Scholar
4.Brigell, M, Bach, M, Barber, C, Kawasaki, K, Kooijman, A.Guidelines for calibration of stimulus and recording parameters used in clinical electrophysiology of vision. Calibration Standard Committee of the International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision (ISCEV). Doc Ophthalmol. 1998;95(1):1–14.Google Scholar