Visual evoked potentials to motion-onset stimulation (M-VEPs) gradually attenuate in amplitude during examination. The observed decline in averaged responses can be caused by decreases in single response magnitudes and/or increased variability in a response delays, that is, latency jittering. To illuminate the origins of the suppression of M-VEPs during stimuli repetition, we used correlation technique to estimate an upper bound of possible latency jittering of single sweeps and we evaluated the effect of its correction on the amplitudes of three M-VEP dominant peaks P1, N2 and P3. During prolonged visual motion stimulation, the variability of corrective latency shifts in the occipital region increased (r = 0.35: 0.44) and the number of single responses corresponding to the average curve declined in occipital and parietal derivations (r = -0.48: -0.62). While the P1 peak amplitude did not exhibit any time-specific behaviour, the N2 amplitude exhibited a significant decay of 29.4% that was partially reduced to 16.6% in the central occipital derivation by the latency jitter and non-correspondence corrections. The strongest attenuation (32.7%) was observed in the P3 amplitude and was less sensitive to the corrections, dropping only to 27.9%. The main part of the response suppression to repeated motion stimulation was caused by amplitude drop and represents non-stationary process that likely correspond to a fatigue model. The rise of variability in latency jitter correction and the reduction in single responses correlated with the M-VEP were significant factors associated with prolonged motion stimulation. The relation of these parameters to a hypothetical veridical response is ambiguous and can be caused by a time shift of the response or by a change of signal-to-noise ratio. Using selective averaging and latency jitter correction, the effect of response suppression was partially removed.

Department of Pathophysiology Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Králové Charles University Prague Prague Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Doc Ophthalmol. 2007 Sep;115(2):95-103 PubMed

Vision Res. 2007 Jan;47(2):189-202 PubMed

Neuroimage. 2010 Jan 15;49(2):1612-21 PubMed

J Neurosci Methods. 2008 Feb 15;168(1):248-55 PubMed

Trends Cogn Sci. 1998 Mar 1;2(3):111-7 PubMed

Vision Res. 1999 Feb;39(3):437-44 PubMed

Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1988;8(2):153-64 PubMed

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005 Jan;243(1):38-42 PubMed

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Oct 15;99(21):13920-5 PubMed

Vision Res. 2001 Aug;41(17):2187-94 PubMed

Trends Cogn Sci. 2006 Jan;10(1):14-23 PubMed

Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1975 Feb;38(2):187-90 PubMed

Science. 1967 Jul 7;157(3784):92-4 PubMed

Psychophysiology. 2000 Mar;37(2):127-52 PubMed

Pflugers Arch. 1981 Aug;391(2):154-8 PubMed

Physiol Res. 1999;48(4):303-8 PubMed

J Neurophysiol. 2002 Jul;88(1):354-69 PubMed

Doc Ophthalmol. 2007 Mar;114(2):83-105 PubMed

J Int Bioethique. 2004 Mar;15(1):124-9 PubMed

Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2009 Sep;92(2):127-34 PubMed

Motion onset VEPs can see through the blur

Effect of Dioptric Blur on Pattern-Reversal and Motion-Onset VEPs as Used in Clinical Research