Chromatic spatial contrast sensitivity estimated by visual evoked cortical potential and psychophysics

The purpose of the present study was to measure contrast sensitivity to equiluminant gratings using steady-state visual evoked cortical potential (ssVECP) and psychophysics. Six healthy volunteers were evaluated with ssVECPs and psychophysics. The visual stimuli were red-green or blue-yellow horizontal sinusoidal gratings, 5^° × 5^°, 34.3 cd/m2 mean luminance, presented at 6 Hz. Eight spatial frequencies from 0.2 to 8 cpd were used, each presented at 8 contrast levels. Contrast threshold was obtained by extrapolating second harmonic amplitude values to zero. Psychophysical contrast thresholds were measured using stimuli at 6 Hz and static presentation. Contrast sensitivity was calculated as the inverse function of the pooled cone contrast threshold. ssVECP and both psychophysical contrast sensitivity functions (CSFs) were low-pass functions for red-green gratings. For electrophysiology, the highest contrast sensitivity values were found at 0.4 cpd (1.95 ± 0.15). ssVECP CSF was similar to dynamic psychophysical CSF, while static CSF had higher values ranging from 0.4 to 6 cpd (P < 0.05, ANOVA). Blue-yellow chromatic functions showed no specific tuning shape; however, at high spatial frequencies the evoked potentials showed higher contrast sensitivity than the psychophysical methods (P < 0.05, ANOVA). Evoked potentials can be used reliably to evaluate chromatic red-green CSFs in agreement with psychophysical thresholds, mainly if the same temporal properties are applied to the stimulus. For blue-yellow CSF, correlation between electrophysiology and psychophysics was poor at high spatial frequency, possibly due to a greater effect of chromatic aberration on this kind of stimulus.

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.