Within-session reproducibility of motion-onset VEPs: effect of adaptation/habituation or fatigue on N2 peak amplitude and latency
Language English Country Netherlands Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Adaptation, Physiological * MeSH
- Habituation, Psychophysiologic physiology MeSH
- Data Interpretation, Statistical MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Least-Squares Analysis MeSH
- Reaction Time MeSH
- Reproducibility of Results MeSH
- Photic Stimulation MeSH
- Fatigue physiopathology MeSH
- Motion Perception physiology MeSH
- Evoked Potentials, Visual * MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
We explored the effect of repeated visual stimulation on motion-onset visual evoked potentials (M-VEPs) during 25 min recording sessions in 10 subjects. The aim of the experiment was to determine influence of global motion adaptation (without motion-aftereffect) on intra-individual variability of M-VEPs and to suggest an optimal recording design for clinical examination. In addition to well described middle-time sensory adaptation, we also observed a long-time effect on motion specific N2 peak (155 ms). The N2 peak exhibited a strong relationship between its latency and inter-peak amplitude to the duration of recording in occipito-parietal derivations. In addition to the middle-term adaptation, N2 peak latency was prolonged by 10 ms and amplitude was attenuated by 30% with respect to the start of the experiment. An exponential model was employed to describe the dependency. The model can be used to reduce intra-individual variability during examination. Observed resemblance between the measured electrophysiological values and already published metabolic changes (glucose and oxygen utilization) during brain processing of visual information is discussed.
See more in PubMed
Vision Res. 1995 Jan;35(2):197-205 PubMed
Physiol Res. 1999;48(4):303-8 PubMed
Doc Ophthalmol. 1992;80(1):83-9 PubMed
Doc Ophthalmol. 2007 Mar;114(2):83-105 PubMed
Neuroimage. 2002 Jun;16(2):531-7 PubMed
Vision Res. 2007 Jan;47(2):189-202 PubMed
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005 Apr;46(4):1296-302 PubMed
Vision Res. 2000;40(18):2379-85 PubMed
Doc Ophthalmol. 1998-1999;95(3-4):315-33 PubMed
Neuroimage. 2006 Dec;33(4):1036-41 PubMed
Eur J Neurosci. 2004 Jun;19(12):3359-64 PubMed
Vision Res. 1994 Jun;34(12):1541-7 PubMed
Vision Res. 2006 Feb;46(4):485-90 PubMed
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1988 Jun;85(12):4534-7 PubMed
Neuroimage. 2002 Sep;17(1):1-18 PubMed
Vision Res. 2004 Jan;44(2):119-34 PubMed
Clin Neurophysiol. 2006 Dec;117(12):2569-83 PubMed
Physiol Res. 2005;54(2):245-50 PubMed
Doc Ophthalmol. 1992;81(2):209-18 PubMed
Doc Ophthalmol. 1998-1999;97(2):121-34 PubMed
J Neurophysiol. 2002 Jul;88(1):354-69 PubMed
Vision Res. 1999 Feb;39(3):437-44 PubMed
Vision Res. 2004 Dec;44(26):2989-3000 PubMed
Brain. 1998 Feb;121 ( Pt 2):233-41 PubMed
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991 Jul 1;88(13):5829-31 PubMed
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Jun 5;98(12):6859-64 PubMed
Vision Res. 2001 Aug;41(17):2187-94 PubMed
Motion onset VEPs can see through the blur
VEP examination with new portable device
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
