Faculty Bibliography

With the multifocal technique, visual evoked potentials (VEPs) can be recorded simultaneously from many regions of the visual field in a matter of minutes. Recently, the multifocal visual evoked potential technique (mfVEP) has generated considerable interest, especially among those seeking objective measures of glaucomatous damage. It is well accepted that significant ganglion cell damage can occur before functional deficits are detected with static automated achromatic perimetry, the 'gold standard' for detecting and monitoring glaucomatous damage. In this article, we ask the following questions: What are the potential applications of the mfVEP technique? What are its limitations? To what extent will it replace or augment static automated achromatic perimetry? To answer these questions requires an understanding of the mfVEP technique, as well as techniques needed to relate its results to those of automated perimetry. describes how the mfVEP is elicited, recorded, derived and displayed. If both eyes of an individual are normal, then mfVEPs recorded for monocular stimulation of each eye are essentially identical. However, the amplitude and waveform of the mfVEP responses vary across individuals, as well as across the visual field within an individual. These variations in the normal mfVEPs are described in Section 3. In, these variations are related to cortical anatomy, and to the cortical sources contributing to the mfVEP. The mfVEP is predominantly generated in V1. Although there are undoubtedly extrastriate contributions, these contributions are probably smaller for the mfVEP than for the conventional VEP. The mfVEP is not a small version of the conventional VEP. To detect ganglion cell damage with the mfVEP requires methods for analyzing the responses and for displaying the results. In, a method for detecting ganglion cell damage is described. This method compares the monocular responses from the two eyes of an individual and produces a map of the defects. This map is in the form of a probability plot similar to the one used to display visual field defects measured with automated perimetry. Procedures are described for directly comparing these mfVEP probability plots to the probability plots for Humphrey visual fields (HVFs). The interocular mfVEP test described in will not be sensitive to bilateral damage. describes a test based upon monocular mfVEPs. The statistical basis of the monocular mfVEP test is relatively complex (see ). In any case, under many conditions the interocular test will be more sensitive and this is discussed in. summarizes a number of clinical applications of the mfVEP and concludes that the mfVEP has a place in the clinical management of glaucoma. To understand the limitations of the mfVEP, a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) approach is described in. Using the techniques described in, the relationship between the amplitude of the mfVEP and the sensitivity loss of the HVF is discussed in. The evidence supports a simple model in which the amplitude of the signal portion, but not the noise portion, of the mfVEP response is proportional to HVF loss where HVF loss is expressed in linear, not dB, units. It is hypothesized that both the signal in the mfVEP, and the sensitivity of the HVF, are linearly related to ganglion cell loss. A theoretical approach, developed in, allows a direct comparison of the efficacy of the mfVEP and HVF in detecting glaucomatous damage. In short, when the mfVEP has a large SNR it will often be superior to the HVF in detecting damage. On the other hand, when the mfVEP has a small SNR, the HVF will probably be superior. summarizes the relative advantages of the HVF and the mfVEP. In summary, the mfVEP does have a place in the clinical management of glaucoma, although it is not likely to replace static automated achromatic perimetry in the near future. However, this is an evolving technology and the future will undoubtedly see major improvements in the mfVEP technique

PURPOSE: A body of clinical and laboratory evidence suggests that tinted spectacle lenses may have an effect on visual performance. The aim of this study was to quantify the effects of spectacle lens tint on the visual performance of 25 subjects with cataracts. METHODS: Cataracts were scored based on best-corrected acuity and by comparison with the Lens Opacity Classification System (LOCS III) plates. Visual performance was assessed by measuring contrast sensitivity with and without glare (Morphonome software version 4.0). The effect of gray, brown, yellow, green and purple tinting was evaluated. RESULTS: All subjects demonstrated an increase in contrast thresholds under glare conditions regardless of lens tint. However, brown and yellow lens tints resulted in the least amount of contrast threshold increase. Gray lens tint resulted in the largest contrast threshold increase. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with lenticular changes may benefit from brown or yellow spectacle lenses under glare conditions

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between spatially localized multifocal visual evoked potentials (mfVEPs) and Humphrey visual fields (HVFs) in patients with unilateral field defects. METHODS: Humphrey visual fields and mfVEPs were obtained from 20 patients with unilateral field losses due to either ischemic optic neuropathy or glaucoma. Monocular mfVEPs were obtained for each eye. The amplitude of the mfVEP responses was calculated using root-mean-square and signal-noise ratio measures. Estimates of the HVF loss in the same regions of the field used for the mfVEP were obtained by interpolating the 24-2 HVF data. RESULTS: Monocular mfVEP amplitude decreased with HVF loss, although small mfVEP signals were not uniquely associated with poor fields. On average, the monocular mfVEP was indistinguishable from noise for field losses between -5 and -10 dB, and good monocular mfVEP amplitudes were never associated with extensive visual field loss. The interocular ratio of the mfVEP amplitudes correlated well with the difference between the HVF values of the 2 eyes, and this correlation improved with increased signal-noise ratio. CONCLUSIONS: The monocular and interocular results were consistent with a linear relationship between the amplitude of the signal portion of the mfVEP response and linear HVF loss. One way to produce this relationship would be if both the signal in the mfVEP and linear HVF loss were linearly related to the percentage of local ganglion cells lost. The clinical limitations of the mfVEP technique can be understood by taking the signal-noise ratio, and the linear model proposed herein, into consideration

PURPOSE: To compare the patterns of local cone and rod system impairment in patients with progressive cone dystrophy (CD) using psychophysical and electrophysiological techniques. METHODS: Local cone system function was assessed by measuring cone system thresholds (visual fields) and cone-mediated multifocal electroretinograms (mfERGs). Rod system function was assessed by measuring rod system thresholds (visual fields) and rod-mediated mfERGs. The results in a group of eight patients with CD were compared with those in an age-similar control group. RESULTS: All the patients had abnormal cone system visual field thresholds and cone-mediated mfERGs. Cone system psychophysical thresholds were elevated for targets presented within the central 10 degrees, but were within normal limits for targets at peripheral locations. Cone-mediated mfERG measures of amplitude scale and time scale were abnormal for most of the hexagons tested. Most of the rod-mediated psychophysical thresholds and mfERGs were within normal limits. Rod system losses tended to be patchy and scattered throughout the area tested. CONCLUSIONS: There was poor correspondence among local measures of cone and rod system losses in these patients with CD. The results suggest that the spatial pattern of cone system losses in this disease differs from the spatial pattern of rod system losses

To determine the manner in which attention is distributed among numerous locations in the visual space, we used a multifocal recording technique that allowed simultaneous recordings of evoked cortical activity from 12 visual field areas out to 23.6 degrees. We found that multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) amplitude was larger when a region of visual space was attended than when it was not attended. The magnitude of this effect was inversely related to visual field eccentricity and there was no attention-related modulation of VEP amplitude for the most eccentric region. In addition, we found that mfVEP amplitudes in the regions contiguous to the attended region could also be larger, depending upon their spatial relationship to the attended region. Specifically, amplitudes in more central regions on the 'meridian of attention' were larger when the subject attended anywhere along that meridian