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

2017 ◽  
Vol 135 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrícia de Freitas Dotto ◽  
Adriana Berezovsky ◽  
Paula Yuri Sacai ◽  
Daniel Martins Rocha ◽  
Solange Rios Salomão
2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 175
Author(s):  
Sanjay Maharjan ◽  
Rita Khadka ◽  
Bishnu Hari Poudel ◽  
Nisha Ghimire ◽  
Kopila Agrawal ◽  
...  

Background: Male and female brain develops differently. Gender is one of biological variables that influence visual evoked potentials (VEP). Some previous studies support the existence of sex related VEP difference while others not. This study is an attempt to explore if any difference exists in VEP responses between genders of children age seven to 10 years with an additional aim of documenting preliminary normative VEP data.Methods: This cross-sectional study was done on consenting children taken from parents (n=76; girls, n=41, age = 8.39±1.11years; boys, n=35, age =8.40±1.09 years). Pattern reversal VEP of these children was recorded as per standard method. Latencies of N75, P100, and N145 (ms); amplitude of P100 (μV) and ratio; interocular asymmetry (ms) of both eyes were calculated. Unpaired t-test was applied for statistical analysis. Ethical clearance was obtained prior to the study.  Result: Girls had decreased VEP latency of P100 than boys in left eye (108.15±8.42 vs. 112.71±11.17ms, p = 0.046), in right eye (107.71±8.52 vs. 114.46±10.98 ms, p = 0.004), and in combination of both eyes (107.92±8.07 vs. 113.58±10.36 ms, p = 0.009). Likewise, girls had decreased VEP latency of N75 than boys in right eye (67.44±6.77 vs. 71.29±8.07 ms, p = 0.027) and in combined eyes (67.23±5.19 vs. 70.14±7.31 ms, p = 0.047). A gender difference in P100 amplitude was not detected.Conclusion: Visual evoked potential differs with gender in prepubertal children aged seven to 10 years.


2020 ◽  
pp. 112067212092564
Author(s):  
Patrícia de Freitas Dotto ◽  
Adriana Berezovsky ◽  
Paula Yuri Sacai ◽  
Daniel Martins Rocha ◽  
Arthur Gustavo Fernandes ◽  
...  

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess visual function by visually evoked potentials in adults with orbital and other primary brain tumors affecting the optic pathway. Methods: In this retrospective case–control series, patients with orbital (intraconal and extraconal) or midline/chiasmatic tumors were included. Visually evoked potentials using pattern-reversal visually evoked potential and flash visually evoked potential stimuli were performed according to the international standards. Outcome measures were visually evoked potential parameters of amplitude (µV) and peak times (ms) measured both for the P100 component (pattern-reversal visually evoked potentials) and the N2P2 complex (flash visually evoked potential). Individual results were also compared with gender-based normative values. Results: A group of 21 adult patients (17 females) and age- and sex-matched controls were evaluated. Tumor location was intraconal (6 meningiomas, 3 hemangiomas, 1 glioma), extraconal (6 meningiomas), and midline (3 pituitary adenomas, 2 hypothalamic/chiasmatic low-grade gliomas). Abnormal fundus (76%), abnormal pupillary reflexes (71%), reduced visual acuity (62%), strabismus (48%), and proptosis (38%) were present. Visually evoked potential abnormalities were found in at least one eye of all cases. Affected eyes had significantly reduced amplitudes and prolonged peak times for pattern-reversal visually evoked potentials ( p < .001) and significantly reduced amplitudes for flash visually evoked potential ( p < .001). In unilateral orbital tumors, abnormally prolonged pattern-reversal visually evoked potential peak times were also detected in some contralateral eyes ( n = 6/16). Conclusion: Visually evoked potential abnormalities were found in all adult patients with orbital and other intracranial primary tumors, even in eyes with normal exam and good visual acuity. Visually evoked potential can be used as a non-invasive ancillary test to characterize and monitor visual function in subjects with these neoplastic lesions.


Author(s):  
Ade Wijaya ◽  
Manfaluthy Hakim ◽  
Nurhadi Ibrahim ◽  
Joedo Prihartono

NORMATIVE VALUES OF VISUAL EVOKED POTENTIALS` LATENCIES AND AMPLITUDES IN ADULTSABSTRACTIntroduction: Visual evoked potentials (VEP) is used to assess the visual pathway through the optic nerves and brain. VEP wave can be affected by physiological and non-physiological factors; some of which can be controlled, while others cannot. Thus, each VEP laboratory needs its own set of normative values. A normal VEP response to a stimulus is a positive occipital peak that occurs at a mean latency of 100ms. Most of the published normal value originated from abroad where demographical and environment condition are considered less appropriate with Indonesian population.Aims: To established normal value of adult VEP latency and amplitude in Clinical Naeurophysiology Laboratori- um, Neurology Clinic Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta.Method: A cross-sectional study on healthy subject between 18 to 55 years old. The anthropometric parameters including age, height, weight, body mass index and head circumference were recorded in all the subjects. VEP was record- ed with a Caldwell Sierra Summit machine and standard silver-silver chloride disc electrodes. A VEP monitor displaying checker board was used to give the pattern reversal stimulus. The VEP parameters recorded were latencies to P100 waves.Results: P100 latencies on 110 subjects, 55 male, and 55 female upon recording at  32’ check size were 117ms in male and 119 ms in female. Upper normal limit of interocular latency difference values in recording at the same size were 10,96ms in male and 10,2ms in female. No significant differences of P100 latencies between male and female were found, but there were significant differences in amplitudes.Discussion: In our population, gender is an important factor affecting P100 amplitudes but not P100 latencies.Keywords: Amplitude, latency, P100, visual evoked potentialABSTRAKPendahuluan: Visual evoked potentials (VEP) digunakan untuk menilai jaras visual dari nervus optikus hingga korteks visual. Gelombang VEP dapat dipengaruhi oleh berbagai faktor fisiologis dan non-fisiologis yang tidak semua dapat dikontrol, sehingga diperlukan referensi nilai normal latensi dan amplitudo gelombang VEP untuk di setiap laborato- rium. Sejauh ini mayoritas referensi berasal dari studi di luar negeri yang secara demografi maupun kondisi setempat dapat kurang sesuai dengan populasi di Indonesia.Tujuan: Mengetahui  nilai normal latensi dan amplitudo gelombang VEP pada subjek dewasa di Laboratorium Neurofisiologi Klinik, Poliklinik Saraf RSUPN Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo, Jakarta, sebagai referensi pemeriksaan VEP di kemudian hari.Metode: Studi potong lintang pada subjek sehat berusia antara 18 hingga 55 tahun. Subjek diukur antropometri, seperti usia, tinggi badan, berat badan, indeks massa tubuh, dan lingkar kepala. Perekaman VEP menggunakan alat Cald- well Sierra Summit, dan elektroda elektroensefalografi (EEG) standar. Stimulus VEP menggunakan layar berpola dan metode transient pattern reversal. Parameter VEP yang direkam adalah latensi dan amplitudo P100.Hasil: Pada perekaman terhadap 110 subjek yang terdiri dari 55 subjek laki-laki dan 55 subjek perempuan dengan ukuran kotak 32’, nilai batas atas latensi gelombang P100 adalah 117ms pada laki-laki dan 119ms pada perempuan. Nilai batas atas perbedaan latensi interokular pada perekaman dengan ukuran kotak yang sama adalah 10,96ms untuk laki-laki dan 10,2ms untuk perempuan. Tidak ada perbedaan bermakna antara latensi gelombang P100 pada kelompok laki-laki dan perempuan, tetapi terdapat perbedaan amplitudo P100 yang bermakna antara kelompok laki-laki dan perempuan.Diskusi: Terdapat perbedaan yang bermakna pada rerata amplitudo P100 antara subjek laki-laki dan perempuan pada perekaman dengan ukuran kotak 16’ maupun 32’.Kata kunci: Amplitudo, latensi, P100, visual evoked potentials


2013 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 1549-1560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vikneswaran Vijean ◽  
M. Hariharan ◽  
Sazali Yaacob ◽  
Mohd Nazri B. Sulaiman ◽  
A.H. Adom

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document