Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T09:07:25.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differentiation of VEP intermodulation and second harmonic components by dichoptic, monocular, and binocular stimulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2009

Steve Suter ,
Penelope S. Suter ,
Denise T. Perrier ,
Kerrie L. Parker ,
James A. Fox  and
Jacqueline S. Roessler
Steve Suter
Affiliation:
Vision Laboratory, Department of Psychology, California State University, Bakersfield
Penelope S. Suter
Affiliation:
Vision Laboratory, Department of Psychology, California State University, Bakersfield
Denise T. Perrier
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley
Kerrie L. Parker
Affiliation:
College of Optometry, University of Houston, Houston
James A. Fox
Affiliation:
Vision Laboratory, Department of Psychology, California State University, Bakersfield
Jacqueline S. Roessler
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Modulation by two temporal frequencies differentiates visual processing at the fundamentals (1Fs), second harmonics (2Fs), and second-order intermodulation components (IMCs), the latter created neurally as the sum or difference of the two modulation frequencies. Steady-state VEPs were recorded while stereo-normal adults viewed luminance or grating stimuli modulated by up to three temporal frequencies under dichoptic, monocular, or ordinary (binocular) viewing conditions arranged using liquid crystal light shutters. In Experiment 1, modulation of luminance by a single temporal frequency produced strong 1F and 2F VEP components, but modulation of gratings produced only 2Fs. Modulation by two temporal frequencies resulted in IMCs, often in the absence of evoked activity in the EEC at the 1Fs. IMCs were generally larger during pattern as compared to luminance modulation. Amplitudes of 1Fs and IMCs were smaller, but 2Fs were larger, during dichoptic as compared to ordinary viewing. Although the 2F to a single modulation presented to one eye was not reduced when a second frequency was added to the opposite eye, monocular IMCs were diminished when a frequency was added to the opposite eye. We conclude that 2Fs and IMCs are associated with different neural substrates. Results are consistent with a two pathway model with one pathway having a nonlinear filter prior to binocular combination, the other pathway having a nonlinearity following binocular linear summation. Implications of these data for binocular function are discussed.

Keywords

Steady-state VEPBinocularVisual pathways
Type
Research Articles
Information
Visual Neuroscience , Volume 13 , Issue 6 , November 1996 , pp. 1157 - 1166
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baitch, L.W. & Levi, D.M. (1988). Evidence for nonlinear binocular interactions in human visual cortex. Vision Research 28, 1139–1143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baitch, L.W. & Levi, D.M. (1989). Binocular beats: Psychophysical studies of binocular interaction in normal and stereoblind humans. Vision Research 29, 27–35.Google Scholar
Baitch, L.W., IIIRidder, W.H., Harwerth, R.S. & IIISmith, E.L. (1991). Binocular beat VEPs: Losses of cortical binocularity in monkeys reared with abnormal visual experience. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 32, 3096–3103.Google Scholar
Blakemore, C. & Vital-Durand, F. (1986). Organization and postnatal development of the monkey's lateral geniculate nucleus. Journal of Physiology 30, 453–491.Google Scholar
Bodis-Wollner, I., Ghilardi, M.F. & Mylin, L.H. (1986). The importance of stimulus selection in VEP practice: The clinical relevance of visual physiology. In Evoked Potentials, ed. Cracco, R.Q. & Bodis-Wollner, I., pp. 15–27. New York: Alan R. Liss.Google Scholar
Brannan, J.R., Bodis-Wollner, I. & Storch, R.L. (1992). Evidence for two distinct nonlinear components in the human pattern ERG. Vision Research 32, 11–17.Google Scholar
De Valois, R.L. & De Valois, K.K. (1988). Spatial Vision. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Enroth-Cugell, C. & Robson, J.G. (1966). The contrast sensitivity of retinal ganglion cells of the cat. Journal of Physiology 187, 517–552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
France, T.D. & Ver Hoeve, J.N. (1994). VECP evidence for binocular function in infantile esotropia. Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus 31, 368–373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeman, R.D. & Ohzawa, I. (1990). On the neurophysiological organization of binocular vision. Vision Research 30, 1661–1676.Google Scholar
Groner, R., Groner, M.T., Muller, P., Bischof, W.F. & Di Lollo, V. (1993). On the confounding effects of phosphor persistence in oscilloscopic displays. Vision Research 33, 913–918.Google Scholar
Hess, R.F., Baker, C.L., Zrenner, E. & Schwarzer, J. (1986). Differences between electroretinograms of cat and primate. Journal of Neurophysiology 56, 747–768.Google Scholar
Hubel, D.H. & Wiesel, T.N. (1962). Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex. Journal of Physiology 160, 106–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaplan, E. & Shapley, R.M. (1982). X and Y cells in the lateral geniculate nucleus of macaque monkeys. Journal of Physiology 330, 125–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klemm, W.R., Goodson, R.A. & Allen, R.G. (1984). Steady-state visual evoked responses in anesthetized monkeys. Brain Research Bulletin 13, 287–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kulikowski, J. (1977). Separation of occipital potentials related to the detection of pattern and movement. In Visual Evoked Potentials in Man: New Developments, ed. Desmedt, J.E., pp. 184–196. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lawton, T.B. & Tyler, C.W. (1994). On the role of X and simple cells in human contrast processing. Vision Research 34, 659–667.Google Scholar
Lennie, P., Trevarthen, C., Van Essen, D. & Wässle, H. (1990). Parallel processing of visual information. In Visual Perception: The Neurophysiological Foundations, ed. Spillmann, L. & Werner, J.S., pp. 103–128. San Diego, California: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Maffei, L. & Fiorentini, A. (1981). Electroretinographic responses to alternating gratings before and after section of the optic nerve. Science 211, 953–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maffei, L. & Fiorentini, A. (1986). Generator sources of the pattern ERG in man and animals. In Evoked Potentials, ed. Cracco, R.Q. & Bodis-Wollner, I., pp. 101–116. New York: Alan R. Liss.Google Scholar
Maier, J., Dagnelie, G., Spekreijse, H. & van Dijk, B.W. (1987). Principal components analysis for source localization of VEPs in man. Vision Research 27, 165–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marrocco, R.T., McClurkin, J.W. & Young, R.A. (1982). Spatial summation and conduction latency classification of cells of the lateral geniculate nucleus of macaques. Journal of Neuroscience 2, 1275–1291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKee, S.P., Levi, D.M. & Bowne, S.F. (1990). The imprecision of stereopsis. Vision Research 30, 1763–1779.Google Scholar
Nakayama, K. & Mackeben, M. (1982). Steady state visual evoked potentials in the alert primate. Vision Research 22, 1261–1271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Odom, J.V. & Chao, G.M. (1995). Models of binocular luminance interaction evaluated using visually evoked potential and psychophysical measures: A tribute to M. Russell Harter. International Journal of Neuroscience 80, 255–280.Google Scholar
Oguchi, Y., Katsumi, O. & Kawara, T. (1982). Binocular VECP with and without fusion. Documenta Ophthalmologica: Proceedings Series 31, 415–420.Google Scholar
Ratliff, F. & Zemon, V. (1982). Some new methods for the analysis of lateral interactions that influence the visual evoked potential. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 388, 113–124.Google Scholar
Regan, D. (1989). Human Brain Electrophysiology: Evoked Potentials and Evoked Magnetic Fields in Science and Medicine. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Regan, D. (1990). To what extent can visual deficits caused by multiple sclerosis be understood in terms of parallel processing? In Vision and the Brain, ed. Cohen, B. & Bodis-Wollner, I., pp. 317–329. New York: Raven Press.Google Scholar
Regan, D. & Regan, M.P. (1987). Nonlinearity in human visual responses to two-dimensional patterns, and a limitation of fourier methods. Vision Research 27, 2181–2183.Google Scholar
Regan, M.P. & Regan, D. (1988). A frequency domain technique for characterizing nonlinearities in biological systems. Journal of Theoretical Biology 133, 293–317.Google Scholar
Riemslag, F.C.C., Ringo, J.L., Spekreijse, H. & Verduyn, Lunel H.F. (1985). The luminance origin of the pattern electroretinogram in man. Journal of Physiology 363, 191–209.Google Scholar
Schiller, P.H., Finlay, B.L. & Volman, S.F. (1976). Quantitative studies of single-cell properties in monkey striate cortex. I. Spatiotemporal organization of receptive fields. Journal of Neurophysiology 39, 1288–1319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapley, R. (1990). Visual sensitivity and parallel retinocortical channels. Annual Review of Psychology 41, 635–658.Google Scholar
Spekreijse, H., Dagnelie, G., Maier, J. & Regan, D. (1985). Flicker and movement constituents of the pattern reversal response. Vision Research 25, 1297–1304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spekreijse, H. & Reits, D. (1982). Sequential analysis of the visual evoked potential system in man: Nonlinear analysis of a sandwich system. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 388, 72–97.Google Scholar
Spekreijse, H. & Oosting, J. (1970). Linearizing: A method for analysing and synthesizing nonlinear systems. Kybernetik 7, 22–31.Google Scholar
Stevens, J.L., Berman, J.L., Schmeisser, E.T. & Baker, R.S. (1994). Dichoptic luminance beat visual evoked potentials in the assessment of binocularity in children. Journal of Pediatrie Ophthalmology and Strabismus 31, 368–373.Google Scholar
Suter, S., Perrier, D.T. & Suter, P.S. (1995). Retinal location and interocular correspondence of stimuli affect VEP intermodulation components but not second harmonics. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 36, S370.Google Scholar
Van Essen, D.C., Anderson, C.H. & Felleman, D.J. (1992). Information processing in the primate visual system: An integrated systems perspective. Science 255, 419–423.Google Scholar
Vaegan, & Sutter, E.E. (1990). Fundamental differences between the nonlinearities of pattern and focal electroretinograms. Documenta Ophthalmologica 76, 13–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westheimer, G. (1993). Phosphor persistence in oscilloscopic displays. Vision Research 33, 2337–2338.Google Scholar
Wilcox, L.M. & Hess, R.F. (1996). Is the site of non-linear filtering in stereopsis before or after binocular combination? Vision Research 36, 391–399.Google Scholar
Zemon, V., Pinkhasov, E. & Gordon, J. (1993). Electrophysiological tests of neural models: Evidence for nonlinear binocular interactions in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. 90, 2975–2978.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed