Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of multifocal and conventional visual evoked potential techniques in patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose To compare conventional visual evoked potential (cVEP) and multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) methods in patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis (ON/MS). Methods mfVEPs and cVEPs were obtained from eyes of the 19 patients with multiple sclerosis confirmed on MRI scans, and from eyes of 40 normal controls. For the mfVEP, the display was a pattern-reversal dartboard array, 48° in diameter, which contained 60 sectors. Monocular cVEPs were obtained using a checkerboard stimulus with check sizes of 15′ and 60′. For the cVEP, the latency of P100 for both check sizes were measured, while for the mfVEP, the mean latency, percent of locations with abnormal latency, and clusters of contiguous abnormal locations were obtained. Results For a specificity of 95%, the mfVEP(interocular cluster criterion) showed the highest sensitivity (89.5%) of the 5 monocular or interocular tests. Similarly, when a combined monocular/interocular criterion was employed, the mfVEP(cluster criterion) had the highest sensitivity (94.7%)/specificity (90%), missing only one patient. The combined monocular/interocular cVEP(60′) test had a sensitivity (84.2%)/specificity (90%), missing 3 patients, 2 more than did the monocular/interocular mfVEP(cluster) test. Conclusion As the cVEP is more readily available and currently a shorter test, it should be used to screen patients for ON/MS with mfVEP testing added when the cVEP test is negative and the damage is local.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Swanson JW (1989) Multiple sclerosis: update in diagnosis and review of prognostic factors. Mayo Clin Proc 64:577–586

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Halliday AM, McDonald EI, Mushin J (1972) Delayed visual evoked response in optic neuritis. Lancet 1:661–664

    Google Scholar 

  3. Yang EB, Hood DC, Rodarte C, Zhang X, Odel JG, Behrens MM (2007) Improvement in conduction velocity after optic neuritis measured with the multifocal VEP. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48:692–698

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Optic Neuritis Study Group (1991) The clinical profile of optic neuritis. Experience of the optic neuritis treatment trial. Arch Ophthalmol 109:1673–1678

    Google Scholar 

  5. Halliday AM, McDonald EI, Mushin J (1973) Visual evoked response in diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. BMJ 1:661–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hood DC, Odel JG, Winn BJ (2003) The multifocal visual evoked potential. J Neuro-Ophthalmol 23:279–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hood DC, Odel JG, Zhang X (2000) Tracking the recovery of local optic nerve function after optic neuritis: a multifocal VEP study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:4032–4038

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hood DC, Ohri N, Yang EB, Rodarte C, Zhang X, Fortune B, Johnson CA (2004) Determining abnormal latencies of multifocal visual evoked potentials: a monocular analysis. Doc Ophthalmol 109:189–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hood DC, Zhang X, Rodarte C, Yang EB, Ohri N, Fortune B, Johnson CA (2004) Determining abnormal interocular latencies of multifocal visual evoked potentials. Doc Ophthalmol 109:177–187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fortune B, Hood DC (2003) Conventional pattern-reversal VEPs are not equivalent to summed multifocal VEPs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:1364–1375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fortune B, Goh K, Demirel S, Novitsky K, Mansberger SL, Johnson CA, Cioffi GA (2003) Detection of glaucomatous visual field loss using the multifocal visual evoked potential. In: Henson DB, Wall M (eds) Perimetry update 2002/2003; Proceedings of the XVth international perimetric society meeting. Kugler, The Hague, pp 251–260

  12. Hood DC, Greenstein VC (2003) Multifocal VEP and ganglion cell damage: applications and limitations for the study of glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res 22:201–251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hood DC, Odel JG, Winn BJ (2003) The multifocal visual evoked potential. J Neuro-Ophthalmol 23:279–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. James AC (2003) The pattern-pulse multifocal visual evoked potential. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:879–890

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. James AC, Ruseckaite R, Maddess T (2005) Effect of temporal sparseness and dichoptic presentation on multifocal visual evoked potentials. Vis Neurosci 22:45–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ruseckaite R, Maddess T, Danta G, Lueck CJ, James AC (2005) Sparse multifocal stimuli for the detection of multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 57:904–913

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Odom JV, Bach M, Barber C et al (2004) Visual evoked potentials standard. Doc Ophthalmol 108:115–123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Baseler HA, Sutter EE, Klein SA, Carney T (1998) The topographic visual evoked potential: improving objective detection of local visual field defects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 39:937–950

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hood DC, Zhang X, Greenstein VC, Kangovi S, Odel JG, Liebmann JM, Ritch R (2000) An interocular comparison of the multifocal VEP: a possible technique for detecting local damage to the optic nerve. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:1580–1587

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hood DC, Zhang X, Hong JE, Chen CS (2002) Quantifying the benefits of additional channels of multifocal VEP recording. Doc Ophthalmol 104:303–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hood DC (2004) Electrophysiologic imaging of retinal and optic nerve damage: the multifocal technique. Ophthalmol Clin N Am 1:69–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Grippo TM, Hood DC, Kanadani FN, Ezon I, Greenstein VC, Liebmann JM, Ritch R (2006) A comparison between multifocal and conventional VEP latency changes secondary to glaucomatous damage. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:5331–5336

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Institutes of Health, National Eye Institute Grants: RO1-EY02115 (DCH). Adam S. Wenick was funded by a fellowship from Fight for Sight, New York, NY, USA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Columbia University, Schermerhorn Hall, Room 416 MC5501, 1190 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY, 10027-7004, USA

    Larissa K. Grover, Donald C. Hood & Quraish Ghadiali

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Donald C. Hood, Adam S. Wenick, Vivienne C. Greenstein, Myles M. Behrens & Jeffrey G. Odel

  3. Einhorn Clinical Research Center, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, NY, USA

    Tomas M. Grippo

Authors
  1. Larissa K. Grover
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Donald C. Hood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Quraish Ghadiali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tomas M. Grippo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Adam S. Wenick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Vivienne C. Greenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Myles M. Behrens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jeffrey G. Odel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donald C. Hood.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grover, L.K., Hood, D.C., Ghadiali, Q. et al. A comparison of multifocal and conventional visual evoked potential techniques in patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis. Doc Ophthalmol 117, 121–128 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-007-9112-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-007-9112-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation