Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: To develop a method for comparing multifocal visual-evoked potential (mfVEP) responses and behaviorally determined visual fields with structural measures of the optic nerve head. METHODS: Humphrey 24-2 visual fields and mfVEPs were obtained from each eye of 20 patients with open-angle glaucoma. Monocular and interocular analyses were performed to identify locations with abnormal mfVEP responses. Optic discs were assessed with a confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope (Heidelberg Retina Tomograph II). The image of the optic nerve head was divided into 6 sectors. The rim and disc area measurements for each sector were compared with those in a normal database using Moorfields regression analysis. The optic nerve head measurements for the 6 sectors were related to the Humphrey visual field locations and the 60 sectors of the mfVEP display. RESULTS: Of 240 sectors tested (40 eyes x 6 sectors), 18.8% on Humphrey visual field, 22.1% on mfVEP, and 10.8% on confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopic testing were significantly different from those of control subjects. There were no significant deficits in 165 sectors. There was agreement for 86.7% of the sectors when the Humphrey visual field and mfVEP results were compared. The confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopic results were in agreement for 84.6% of these sectors. CONCLUSIONS: The method used allows for a comparison among measures of visual function and a structural measure of the optic nerve head. In general, the results of the functional and structural measures showed agreement; however, there were clear examples of disagreements that merit further study

PURPOSE: To gain better understanding of the relationship between abnormalities detected by the multifocal VEP (mfVEP) compared with those detected by static achromatic, automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma. METHODS: Fifty patients were studied who had open-angle glaucoma that met the following criteria: (1) a mean deviation (MD) of better than -8 dB in both eyes on the 24-2 Humphrey visual field (HVF) test (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA); and (2) glaucomatous damage in at least one eye, as defined by a glaucomatous optic disc and an abnormal 24-2 HVF test result (pattern standard deviation [PSD] <5% and/or glaucoma hemifield test [GHT] results outside normal limits). Monocular mfVEPs were obtained from each eye by using a pattern-reversal dartboard array, 44.5 degrees in diameter, which contained 60 sectors. Recording electrodes were placed at the inion (I) and I+4 cm, and also at two lateral locations up 1 cm and over 4 cm from I. Monocular and interocular mfVEP probability plots were derived by comparing the results with those of normal control subjects. For both the HVF and mfVEP probability plots, a hemifield was classified as abnormal if three or more contiguous points were significant at less than 5%, with at least one at less than 1%. RESULTS: Of the 200 hemifields tested (50 patients x two eyes x two hemifields), 75 showed significant clusters on the HVF, and 74 (monocular probability plot) and 93 (monocular or interocular plot) showed significant clusters on the mfVEP. Overall, the HVF and mfVEP results agreed on 74% of the hemifields, and 90 hemifields were normal and 58 were abnormal on both the mfVEP (interocular and/or monocular abnormal) and HVF cluster tests. Of the 52 disagreements, 35 hemifields had a significant cluster on the mfVEP, but not on the HVF, whereas the reverse was true of 17 hemifields. A case-by-case analysis indicated that misses and false-positive results occurred on both the HVF and mfVEP tests. CONCLUSIONS: As predicted from a theoretical analysis, under these conditions (i.e., the signal-to-noise level) the HVF and monocular mfVEP tests showed a comparable number of defects, and, with the addition of the interocular test, the mfVEP showed more abnormalities than the HVF. However, although there were abnormalities detected by the mfVEP that were missed by the HVF, the reverse was true as well

PURPOSE: To determine the extent of rod and cone photoreceptor dysfunction in patients with cone dystrophy using psychophysical and electrophysiological tests. METHODS: Ten patients with cone dystrophy participated. Rod and cone system psychophysical thresholds were measured as a function of retinal eccentricity. Bright-flash full-field electroretinograms were obtained under dark-adapted (rod-mediated) and light-adapted (cone-mediated) conditions. The a-wave data were fitted with a model based on photopigment transduction to obtain values for log Rmax (maximum response) and log S (sensitivity). b-Wave parameters were also examined by fitting a nonlinear, saturating function (the Naka-Rushton equation) to the rod-mediated responses. Oscillatory potentials were measured to the cone-mediated high-intensity flashes. RESULTS: On average, the rod-mediated psychophysical thresholds were elevated by 0.5 log unit. These threshold elevations did not differ significantly with retinal eccentricity. In contrast, cone-mediated psychophysical thresholds were elevated up to 3.0 log units. Threshold elevation was greatest in the central retinal locations. For rod-mediated conditions, the a-wave Rmax parameter was significantly reduced in three patients; the a-wave log S parameter was within normal limits. The rod-mediated b-wave Rmax parameter was reduced in six patients; log k was abnormal in one patient. For cone-mediated conditions, the a-wave Rmax parameter was reduced in six patients and the a-wave log S parameter was reduced in two patients. The cone system oscillatory potentials were abnormal in nine patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cone dystrophy show different patterns of psychophysical rod versus cone system sensitivity losses with retinal eccentricity. The full-field electrophysiological data indicate that most of the patients had abnormal cone photoreceptor function. Some patients also showed rod photoreceptor abnormalities. The rod system changes were smaller than the cone system changes

PURPOSE: To investigate the repeat reliability of the multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifteen subjects with no known abnormalities of the visual system and 10 patients with glaucoma participated in the study. Monocular mfVEPs were recorded on two separate days, using a 60-sector, pattern-reversal dart board array. Within a single session, two 7-minute. recordings were obtained for each eye. The amplitude of each mfVEP response was obtained using a root mean square measure (RMS). An mfVEP ratio [10*log (RMS day 1 / RMS day 2)] provided a measure of the reproducibility of an individual response. The same calculations were performed for Run 1 compared with Run 2 within a day and Run 1 (Run 2) compared with Run 1 (Run 2) across days. RESULTS: For all 1800 mfVEP responses (60 sectors x 15 subjects x 2 eyes), the correlation between the amplitude on day 2 and the amplitude on day 1 was good (r = 0.85). The mean standard deviation (SD) of the 60 mfVEP ratios for the individual subjects was 1.63 dB for the 14-minute records (the combination of the two 7-minute recordings). On average for the 7-minute records, the mean SD across days was 1.77 dB while the mean SD within a day was 1.53 dB. The correlation within a day (r = 0.87) also was slightly larger than across days (r = 0.80). The mean SD decreased as the RMS amplitude increased. The patients' mean SD was 1.75 dB with r equal to 0.82. CONCLUSIONS: The repeat reliability of the mfVEP was good (approximately 1.6dB); in fact, it was better than that typically obtained with static automated perimetry (approximately 2.7dB). Repeat testing on separate days added surprisingly little to the variability seen with repeat testing within the same session

PURPOSE: To determine whether the multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) technique can detect damage to the visual system in the unaffected hemifields of patients with glaucoma and unilateral hemifield defects. DESIGN: Experimental study. METHODS: Monocular mfVEPs and achromatic automated perimetry (AAP) were obtained in both eyes of 16 patients with open-angle glaucoma and unilateral hemifield defects. The mfVEPs were obtained using a pattern-reversal dartboard array with 60 sectors; the entire display was 44.5 degrees in diameter. For each pair of mfVEP responses an interocular ratio of root-mean-square amplitude was calculated. These values were compared with the mean values obtained from 30 control subjects. Probability plots for MfVEP were derived. A cluster analysis was used to determine whether an mfVEP hemifield was normal or abnormal. RESULTS: Three of 60 (5.0%) mfVEP hemifields from control subjects had significant mfVEP deficits based upon a cluster of abnormal points. Significant mfVEP deficits were detected in the affected AAP hemifield in 15 of 16 (93.8%) glaucoma patients and in 6 of 16 patients in hemifields with apparently normal AAP. The percentage of hemifields with abnormal mfVEPs, but normal AAP, was significantly higher for the glaucoma patients than for the controls (37.5% vs 5.0%, P <.001, chi square).In glaucomatous eyes with achromatic visual fields defects limited to one hemifield, the mfVEP technique can detect evidence of glaucomatous damage in the unaffected hemifield