Zuzana Kubová

Contrast dependence of motion-onset and pattern-reversal evoked potentials

This study deals with the effect of stimulus contrast, between 1.3% and 96%, on the visual evoked potentials (VEPs) for onset of motion and for pattern reversal of checkerboard stimuli. The VEPs for pattern reversal and for the onset of motion both contain an initial positive peak (P1; peak latency about 120 msec) followed by a later negative peak (N2; peak latency 160-200 msec). However the P1 peak dominates the pattern-reversal VEP when recorded from the midline occipital lead, where it is maximal, while the N2 peak is larger in the motion-onset VEP, especially when recorded from unipolar lateral occipital leads. Whereas the amplitude of the P1 peak in both the pattern-reversal VEP and the motion-onset VEP decreases with decreasing contrast (becoming undetectable at a contrast of about 2% for the motion-onset VEP), the amplitude of the N2 peak in both types of VEP does not vary significantly with contrast, above a contrast of 1.3%. The increase in peak latency with decreasing contrast is also more pronounced for the positive than the negative peaks of both types of VEP. Taking into account the high contrast sensitivity of the magnocellular system (thought to be involved in the processing of motion) compared with the parvocellular system (probably more concerned with the processing of form), our findings suggest that for both motion-onset and pattern-reversal VEPs the negative peak is attributable to the motion-processing magnocellular pathway and the positive peak to the form-processing parvocellular system.

Visual evoked potentials specific for motion onset

Motion-onset visual evoked potentials were studied in 140 subjects by means of motion-onset stimulation either on a television screen or through back projecting via a moving mirror. The motion-onset visual evoked potentials were characterized in 94% of the population by a dominant negative peak with latency in the range of 135–180 ms. Motion-onset visual evoked potentials with a dominant positive peak, as described in the literature, seemed to be a variant of pattern-off visual evoked potentials, caused by the pattern-disappearance effect at the onset of motion with a high temporal frequency (the multiple of the spatial frequency of the structure and the velocity of motion) of more than 6 Hz. Such visual evoked potentials occur mainly when the stimulus is limited to the macular area only. Additionally, other stimulus and recording conditions were found to be suitable for acquiring the specific motion-onset potentials without their contamination by pattern-related components. These conditions were as follows: an aperiodic moving pattern (e.g., random dots) with a low contrast (<0.2); a short duration of motion (⩽200 ms) and a sufficient interstimulus interval (at least five times longer than the motion duration) to decrease the adaptation to motion; and extramacular stimulation and recording of visual evoked potentials from unipolar lateral occipital leads. Such leads should be used because of the lateralization of these visual evoked potentials (mainly to the right occipital area), which is consistent with their assumed extrastriate origin.

Motion-onset VEPs: Characteristics, methods, and diagnostic use

This review article summarises the research on the motion-onset visual evoked potentials (VEPs) and important motion stimulus parameters which have been clarified. For activation of the visual motion processing system and evocation of the motion-onset specific N2 peak (with latency of 160-200ms) from the extra-striate temporo-occipital and/or parietal cortex, the following stimulus parameters can be recently recommended: low luminance (<ca. 20cd/m(2)) and low contrast (<ca. 10%-sinusoidally modulated) of a moving structure with low velocity and temporal frequency (<ca. 6Hz). A short (up to 200ms) duration of motion and a long (at least 1s) inter-stimulus interval reduce adaptation to motion and predominance of a pattern-related P1 peak. Radial motion (with increasing velocity and decreasing spatial frequency towards the periphery) produces larger reactions as compared to a unidirectional translation. In view of the slow maturation (up to the age of 18 years) and early ageing of the visual motion processing system, the use of age-dependent latency norms may be necessary. Since early or selective involvement of the motion processing system is suspected in some CNS disorders, we suggest an evaluation of the utility of motion-onset VEPs as part of the electrophysiological CNS examination since this method may recognise motion processing involvement better than other methods. Motion-onset VEPs might increase the sensitivity of this examination for diagnosing CNS diseases including Multiple Sclerosis, Neuroborreliosis, Glaucoma, Dyslexia and Encephalopathies.

Is the motion system relatively spared in amblyopia ? Evidence from cortical evoked responses

Visual evoked potentials (VEPs) produced by pattern reversal were compared with those elicited by onset of motion in 37 amblyopic children (20 with anisometropic amblyopia, seven with strabismic amblyopia and 10 with both anisometropia and strabismus). The amplitudes and peak latencies of the main P1 peak in the pattern-reversal VEP and of the motion-specific N2 peak in the motion-onset VEP through the amblyopic eye were compared with those through the normal fellow eye. Regardless of the type of amblyopia, the amplitude of the pattern-reversal VEP for full-field stimulation was significantly smaller and its latency significantly longer through the amblyopic eye (P < 0.001). In contrast, neither the amplitudes nor the latencies of the N2 motion-onset VEPs differed significantly between amblyopic and non-amblyopic eyes. For pattern-reversal VEPs through the amblyopic eyes, the extent to which amplitude was reduced and latency prolonged correlated well with the reduction of visual acuity, whereas the amplitudes and latencies of motion-onset VEPs did not vary with visual acuity. Even for stimuli restricted to the central visual field (5 or 2 deg diameter) or to the peripheral field (excluding the central 5 deg), motion-onset responses were indistinguishable through the two eyes, while pattern-reversal responses always differed significantly in amplitude. These results suggest that the source of motion-onset VEPs (probably an extrastriate motion-sensitive area) is less affected in amblyopia than that of pattern-reversal VEPs (probably the striate cortex). The motion pathway, presumably deriving mainly from the magnocellular layers of the lateral geniculate nucleus, may be relatively spared in amblyopia.

Properties of visual evoked potentials to onset of movement on a television screen

In 80 subjects the dependence of movement-onset visual evoked potentials on some measures of stimulation was examined, and these responses were compared with pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials to verify the effectiveness of pattern movement application for visual evoked potential acquisition. Horizontally moving vertical gratings were generated on a television screen. The typical movement-onset reactions were characterized by one marked negative peak only, with a peak time between 140 and 200ms. In all subjects the sufficient stimulus duration for acquisition of movement-onset-related visual evoked potentials was 100ms; in some cases it was only 20ms. Higher velocity (5.6°/s) produced higher amplitudes of movement-onset visual evoked potentials than did the lower velocity (2.8°/s). In 80% of subjects, the more distinct reactions were found in the leads from lateral occipital areas (in 60% from the right hemisphere), with no correlation to handedness of subjects. Unlike pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials, the movement-onset responses tended to be larger to extramacular stimulation (annular target of 5°–9°) than to macular stimulation (circular target of 5° diameter).

Motion-onset VEPs reflect long maturation and early aging of visual motion-processing system

Pattern-reversal and motion-onset visual evoked potentials (VEPs) were simultaneously tested in a group of 70 healthy subjects between the ages of 6-60 years to verify suspected differences in maturation and aging dynamics of the pattern and motion processing subsystems of the visual pathway. The motion-onset VEPs displayed dramatic configuration development and shortening of latencies up to 18 years of age (correl. coeff. -0.85; p < 0.001) and systematic prolongation from about 20 years of age (correl. coeff. 0.70; p < 0.001). This confirms long-lasting maturation of the magnocellular system and/or motion processing cortex and their early age related changes. Less significant changes of pattern-reversal VEPs in the tested age range can be interpreted as a sign of early maturation of the parvocellular system and its enhanced functional endurance in the elderly.

The development of hemispheric asymmetry in human motion VEPs

In six healthy adults we examined the sources underlying P1 and N2 of the motion VEP. For this purpose was acquired, in addition to the VEP, MRI images and patterns of regional cerebral blood flow with SPECT for three of the subjects. With the same motion stimulus we also examined the spatial distribution of N2 in children. In both adults and children left and right half-field responses were compared. It was found that N2 is generated by extrastriate activity and that motion stimuli are not equivalently processed in the two cerebral hemispheres. In adults, N2 dominates in one hemisphere irrespective of the visual half-field used for stimulation whereas children show an ipsilateral maximum for N2 upon half-field presentation.

Visual mismatch negativity elicited by magnocellular system activation.

The processing of visual motion was tested by means of event related potentials recording (ERP) using a paradigm designed to produce a visual mismatch negativity effect. The stimuli were unattended and presented in the peripheral visual field (outside the central 15 degrees). The standard stimulus consisted of an up/down motion sequence, whilst the deviant stimulus of a down/up motion sequence. Significant ERP differences between the standard and deviant conditions were found in 8 out of 10 adult subjects already in 80 ms and prevailingly in interval 145-260 ms from the initial stimulus presentation. The results demonstrate that the magnocellular information undergoes processing capable of detecting differences in the sequence of unattended peripheral motion stimuli.

Clinical application of motion-onset visual evoked potentials

The results of motion-onset visual evoked potentials and pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials were compared in 5 adults with amblyopia, in 13 patients with unilateral retrobulbar neuritis and in 62 patients with multiple sclerosis. While the pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials had reduced amplitudes and prolonged latencies in all amblyopic eyes, the motion-onset visual evoked potentials were normal. Thus, motion-onset visual evoked potentials cannot be used for diagnosis of amblyopia. In patients with retrobulbar neuritis, both types of visual evoked potentials were delayed on stimulation of the affected eye. The latency increase was, however, greater for pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials than for motion-onset visual evoked potentials. Examination of the patients with multiple sclerosis showed that the additional use of motion-onset visual evoked potentials increased the sensitivity of the investigation. In some patients, only the motion-onset visual evoked potentials had pathologic latency increases, whereas the pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials stayed within normal limits.

Motion-onset VEPs to translating, radial, rotating and spiral stimuli

AbstractMotion-onset related visual evoked potentials (M-VEPs) were recorded as a result of the three basic (translating, radial and rotating) and one complex (spiral) motion stimulations in five subjects. Low contrast, retinotopically scaled patterns evoked potentials with major motion-onset specific negativity N160 with maximum in the parieto-temporal region. All multidirectional motion stimuli elicited the motion-onset response of significantly higher amplitude and shorter latency compared to the translating (unidirectional) motion. The rotation-onset evoked potentials had significantly shorter latencies than the rest of explored stimuli. The most stable responses with the largest N160 amplitude were recorded to the radial motion. After masking of the central 20° of the visual field these motion-onset VEPs were acquired without statistically significant amplitude drop. The efficiency and usefulness of the radial stimulus is presented in two clinical cases.