scholarly journals Influence of Rotating Shift Work on Visual Reaction Time and Visual Evoked Potential

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hemamalini R.V
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Shift Work ◽  
Visual Evoked Potential ◽  
Evoked Potential ◽  
Visual Reaction Time ◽  
Visual Reaction ◽  
Rotating Shift Work ◽  
Visual Evoked

scholarly journals Effect of smoking on visual evoked potential (VEP) and visual reaction time (VRT)

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 9-13
Author(s):  
Karishma Rajbhandari Pandey ◽  
Dipesh Raj Panday ◽  
Nirmala Limbu ◽  
Bhupendra Shah ◽  
Kopila Agarwal
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Visual Evoked Potential ◽  
Evoked Potential ◽  
Smoking Status ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Visual Reaction Time ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Visual Reaction ◽  
Pattern Vep ◽  
Visual Evoked

Background: Nicotine in tobacco smoke causes demyelination. Again, hypoxia in long-term smokers is linked to neuropathy. Visual receptors are early sufferer of neuropathy. Visual-Acuity & other ocular tests often fail to detect subtle changes of neuropathy which, however, can be detected by VEP test. Literature review shows that changes in VEP come earlier than PFT changes in smokers. Ironically, smokers claim that smoking improves their reaction time, which can be assessed by VRT. Aims and Objective: To relate smoking status with VEP and VRT. Materials and Methods: Fifty-six subjects (smoker group = 28 & non-smoker group = 28), whose age & sex were matched, were included in the study. Their PFT, pattern VEP of both eyes & VRT were recorded. The data were compared between the two groups using unpaired t-test, considering statistical significance at p<0.05. Results: The FVC (4.35±0.83 vs. 5.32+1.18 l, p=0.022), FEF 25% (7.40+2.38 vs. 8.74+3.90 l/s, p=0.019) & FEF 50% (6.11+1.52 vs. 7.74+2.57, p= 0.010) were significantly lower in smokers compared to nonsmokers. There was no significant difference in P100 wave latency of VEP. But, VRT of smokers were significantly shorter (431.69+60.29 vs. 441.14+123.54 ms, p=0.010). Conclusion: Smokers have shorter visual reaction time and similar visual evoked potential as compared to non-smokers.

Cortical and subcortical visual evoked potential correlates of reaction time in monkeys.

1976 ◽  
Vol 90 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo M. Chalupa ◽  
John W. Rohrbaugh ◽  
Jay E. Gould ◽  
Donald B. Lindsley
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Visual Evoked Potential ◽  
Evoked Potential ◽  
Visual Evoked

Olfactory Modulation of Steady- State Visual Evoked Potential Topography in Comparison with Differences in Odor Sensitivity

2002 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline M. Owen ◽  
John Patterson ◽  
Richard B. Silberstein
Keyword(s):  
Steady State ◽  
Visual Evoked Potential ◽  
Evoked Potential ◽  
Behavioral Responses ◽  
Simultaneous Recording ◽  
Odor Concentration ◽  
Odor Detection ◽  
Detection Response ◽  
Response Groups ◽  
Visual Evoked

Summary Research was undertaken to determine whether olfactory stimulation can alter steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP) topography. Odor-air and air-only stimuli were used to determine whether the SSVEP would be altered when odor was present. Comparisons were also made of the topographic activation associated with air and odor stimulation, with the view toward determining whether the revealed topographic activity would differentiate levels of olfactory sensitivity by clearly identifying supra- and subthreshold odor responses. Using a continuous respiration olfactometer (CRO) to precisely deliver an odor or air stimulus synchronously with the natural respiration, air or odor (n-butanol) was randomly delivered into the inspiratory airstream during the simultaneous recording of SSVEPs and subjective behavioral responses. Subjects were placed in groups based on subjective odor detection response: “yes” and “no” detection groups. In comparison to air, SSVEP topography revealed cortical changes in response to odor stimulation for both response groups, with topographic changes evident for those unable to perceive the odor, showing the presence of a subconscious physiological odor detection response. Differences in regional SSVEP topography were shown for those who reported smelling the odor compared with those who remained unaware of the odor. These changes revealed olfactory modulation of SSVEP topography related to odor awareness and sensitivity and therefore odor concentration relative to thresholds.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document