Purpose. The mfVEP is an objective non-invasive electrodiagnostic test that provides local (typically 60) visual evoked responses across over 40 deg field of vision. In addition to response amplitudes, the mfVEP also provides time response (latency) information. Latency measurements are of great importance when evaluating the visual pathway of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients because one of the hallmarks of the disease is demyelination of nerve fibers which slows signal conduction. The aims of this dissertation were (1) to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the mfVEP in detecting visual pathway abnormalities in MS patients, (2) to describe the mfVEP characteristics in MS patients with or without a history of optic neuritis (ON), (3) to compare the sensitivity of the mfVEP with Humphrey visual field (HVF) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) in detecting visual pathway abnormality in MS, and (4) to investigate the effect of reduction in stimulus contrast on mfVEP results.
Methods. mfVEPs were recorded monocularly using a 60-sector cortically scaled pattern-reversal dartboard stimulus (VERIS). Customized software was used to compare amplitude and latency for each sector to built-in normative data, and to construct probability plots (analogous to HVF total deviation plots). Experiment 1: Size and location of clusters of adjacent abnormal sectors on probability plots were analyzed for three groups: MS patients with a history of ON (MS-ON, n=74 eyes), or without (MS-no-ON, n=71 eyes), and control subjects (n=100 eyes). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed for cluster criteria and percent of abnormal sectors. Experiment 2: Results from mfVEP, HVF and OCT (retinal nerve fiber layer) were compared for MS-ON (n=47 eyes, last ON episode was ≥6 months prior to the study) and MS-no-ON (n=65 eyes). Percent of observed agreement among the tests was examined and linear regression analysis was done. Topographic comparisons were made based on OCT quadrants. Experiment 3: Stimulus contrast was varied over 6 levels (10, 25, 35, 50, 75, 95%) for 7 control subjects. Contrast response functions (CRFs) were described for the entire field, and at different eccentricities (1, 2.5, 5.6, 9.8, 15.0, 22.2 deg).
Results. (1) Cluster criteria based on amplitude and latency probability plots showed the greatest area under the ROC curve yielding a criterion with high sensitivity and specificity. (2) Response amplitudes were reduced and latencies were longer in the MS-ON group, with significant differences between all groups: MS-ON, MS-no-ON, and controls. Abnormal sectors were diffusely distributed. (3) MfVEP identified more abnormal MS-ON eyes than HVF and OCT. MfVEP and HVF identified more abnormal MS-no-ON eyes than OCT did. Linear regression showed stronger correlation between the functional tests (mfVEP vs. HVF) than between structural and functional tests (OCT vs. mfVEP or HVF). Topographic agreement among tests was weak. (4) CRFs based on response amplitude were adequately described by a simple hyperbolic function. The mfVEP contrast response function in the central visual field saturated at a substantially higher contrast level compared to those from eccentric regions. Mean latency increased slightly with reduction in contrast and did not vary significantly with eccentricity.
Conclusions. The mfVEP provides high sensitivity and specificity in detecting abnormalities in visual function in MS patients. MfVEP provides information on visual abnormalities not revealed by HVF or OCT. Combining results of all three tests is beneficial in detecting vision-related defects in MS patients. The effect of reduction in stimulus contrast on the mfVEP amplitude is most apparent in central visual field. The effect of contrast and eccentricity on latency is relatively small.
|Advisor:||Cheng, Han, Frishman, Laura J.|
|School:||University of Houston|
|School Location:||United States -- Texas|
|Source:||DAI-B 70/09, Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Keywords:||Multifocal visual evoked potential, Multiple sclerosis, Visual pathway|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be