Contrast sensitivity of pattern transient VEP components: contribution from M and P pathways

The purpose of this study was to compare contrast sensitivity estimated from transient visual evoked potentials (VEPs) elicited by achromatic pattern-reversal and pattern-onset/offset modes. The stimuli were 2-cpd, achromatic horizontal gratings presented either as a 1 Hz pattern reversal or a 300 ms onset/700 ms offset stimulus. Contrast thresholds were estimated by linear regression to amplitudes of VEP components vs. the logarithm of the stimulus contrasts, and these regressions were extrapolated to the zero amplitude level. Contrast sensitivity was defined as the inverse of contrast threshold. For pattern reversal, the relation between the P100 amplitude and log of the stimulus contrast was best described by two separate linear regressions. For the N135 component, a single straight line was sufficient. In the case of pattern onset/offset for both the C1 and C2 components, single straight lines described their amplitude vs. log contrast relations in the medium-to-low contrast range. Some saturation was observed for C2 components. The contrast sensitivity estimated from the low-contrast limb of the P100, from the N135, and from the C2 were all similar but higher than those obtained from the high-contrast limb of the P100 and C1 data, which were also similar to each other. With 2 cpd stimuli, a mechanism possibly driven by the M pathway appeared to contribute to the P100 component at medium-to-low contrasts and to the N135 and C2 components at all contrast levels, whereas another mechanism, possibly driven by the P and M pathways, appeared to contribute to the P100 component at high contrast and C1 component at all contrast levels.

Comparison of the reliability of multifocal visual evoked cortical potentials generated by pattern reversal and pattern pulse stimulation

This study compared the effectiveness of the multifocal visual evoked cortical potentials (mfVEP) elicited by pattern pulse stimulation with that of pattern reversal in producing reliable responses (signal-to-noise ratio >1.359). Participants were 14 healthy subjects. Visual stimulation was obtained using a 60-sector dartboard display consisting of 6 concentric rings presented in either pulse or reversal mode. Each sector, consisting of 16 checks at 99% Michelson contrast and 80 cd/m2 mean luminance, was controlled by a binary m-sequence in the time domain. The signal-to-noise ratio was generally larger in the pattern reversal than in the pattern pulse mode. The number of reliable responses was similar in the central sectors for the two stimulation modes. At the periphery, pattern reversal showed a larger number of reliable responses. Pattern pulse stimuli performed similarly to pattern reversal stimuli to generate reliable waveforms in R1 and R2. The advantage of using both protocols to study mfVEP responses is their complementarity: in some patients, reliable waveforms in specific sectors may be obtained with only one of the two methods. The joint analysis of pattern reversal and pattern pulse stimuli increased the rate of reliability for central sectors by 7.14% in R1, 5.35% in R2, 4.76% in R3, 3.57% in R4, 2.97% in R5, and 1.78% in R6. From R1 to R4 the reliability to generate mfVEPs was above 70% when using both protocols. Thus, for a very high reliability and thorough examination of visual performance, it is recommended to use both stimulation protocols.