Is the motion system relatively spared in amblyopia? Evidence from cortical evoked responses
Language English Country Great Britain, England Media print
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PubMed
8746252
DOI
10.1016/0042-6989(95)00055-5
PII: 0042698995000555
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Amblyopia physiopathology MeSH
- Time Factors MeSH
- Child MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Adolescent MeSH
- Fixation, Ocular MeSH
- Pattern Recognition, Visual physiology MeSH
- Motion Perception physiology MeSH
- Visual Acuity MeSH
- Visual Fields MeSH
- Visual Pathways physiology MeSH
- Evoked Potentials, Visual physiology MeSH
- Visual Cortex physiopathology MeSH
- Check Tag
- Child MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Adolescent MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
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.
References provided by Crossref.org
Effect of Dioptric Blur on Pattern-Reversal and Motion-Onset VEPs as Used in Clinical Research
Difficulties of motion-onset VEP interpretation in school-age children
Visual mismatch negativity in the dorsal stream is independent of concurrent visual task difficulty
Visual evoked potentials to pattern, motion and cognitive stimuli in Alzheimer's disease
Motion-onset VEPs to translating, radial, rotating and spiral stimuli
Motion-onset visual evoked potentials improve the diagnosis of glaucoma