Comparative effects of luminance and scatter on the pattern visual evoked potential and eye-hand reaction time

Visual evoked potentials and reaction time measurements to motion-reversal luminance- and texture-defined stimuli

PURPOSE

Previous studies have suggested that compared to first-order (FO) motion stimuli, second-order (SO) motion stimuli required more cortical time to be processed. The purpose of this study was: 1- to verify this claim with Visual Evoked Potential (VEP) and eye-hand Reaction Time (RT) measurements and 2- examine if the VEP and RT responses are similarly modulated by the same trigger features of the stimuli.

METHODS

The VEPs and eye-hand RT for motion-reversal luminance- (first-order) and texture-defined (second-order) stimuli were recorded from ten normal human subjects. VEPs and RTs were measured for each motion class at eight different modulation depths (from 3 to 100%).

RESULTS

Our results reveal that for stimuli of low contrast levels, the SO-FO timing differences are approximately 100 ms (RT) or 20 ms (VEP), while for contrasts >or= 15-20% (VEP) or >or= 50% (RT), the SO-FO difference is no longer significant (p < 0.007), suggesting either that the brain can no longer distinguish SO from FO stimuli or that in spite of the added complexity of SO stimuli the brain takes equal time to process both.

CONCLUSION

Interestingly, the above contrast discrepancy in SO-FO resolution threshold suggests that, compared to the VEP, the more psychophysical RT measurement can process and thus distinguish a larger spectrum of motion stimuli, thus further confirming the latter measure of the retinocortical processing time as a valid alternative to the VEP.

Can whole brain nerve conduction velocity be derived from surface-recorded visual evoked potentials?

Reed, Vernon, and Johnson [Reed, T. E., Vernon, P. A., & Johnson, A. M. (2004). Sex difference in brain nerve conduction velocity in normal humans. Neuropsychologia, 42, 1709-1714] reported that "nerve conduction velocity" (NCV) of visual transmission from retina to the primary visual area (V1) is significantly faster in males than females. The authors estimated the NCV by dividing head length (nasion-to-inion distance) by the latency of the well-known P100 component of the visual evoked potential (VEP). Here, we critically examine these metrics and we contend that knowledge of the underlying physiology of neural transmission across the initial stages of the visual processing hierarchy dictates that a number of their assumptions cannot be reasonably upheld. Alternative, and we believe, more parsimonious interpretations of the data are also proposed.

Spatiotemporal differences between cognitive processes of spatially possible and impossible objects: a high-density electrical mapping study

Differences in cognitive processing between spatially possible and impossible figures were investigated using event-related potentials (ERPs). Two types of figures with identical luminance and equivalent spatial frequency were used as visual stimuli: possible three-dimensional figures (drawn with perspective and existing in the three-dimensional world) and impossible figures (drawn with perspective but not existing in the three-dimensional world). High-density electroencephalographic recording (72 channels) was performed for analysis of ERPs accompanying perception of each figure type; amplitude differences between the conditions were considered neurophysiologic correlates to perceptual differences between possible and impossible objects. Low-resolution brain electromagnetic tomography (LORETA) was used to identify the current source related to the differences. Compared with impossible three-dimensional figures, perception of possible figures showed a significant negative potential increase in the right inferior occipitotemporal region between 350 and 389 ms of latency. The current source was localized to the right fusiform gyrus. The results suggest that right fusiform gyrus is involved in discrimination between spatially possible and impossible objects.

Response characteristics of the normal retino-cortical pathways as determined with simultaneous recordings of pattern visual evoked potentials and simple motor reaction times

PURPOSE

In an attempt to explain the existing discrepancies regarding the relationship between electrophysiological and psychophysical measurements of visual transmission time we compared, in humans, the response characteristics of the normal retino-cortical pathways with simultaneously obtained pattern visual evoked potentials (PVEP) and simple motor reaction times (RT).

METHODS

PVEPs and manual RTs were recorded simultaneously using a reversing checkerboard with different spatial frequency and contrast combinations chosen to elicit responses favoring the magnocellular or parvocellular pathways. The amplitude and peak time of the P1 wave of the PVEP were compared to the mean RT. Other parameters of the RT, such as mode and standard deviation were also considered.

RESULTS

The RT is not modified in the same fashion as the peak time of the P1 wave of the PVEP, the peak time of the PVEP demonstrating a spatial frequency selectivity, while the RT does not. Further comparative analysis of the PVEP and RT shows that the RT is faster for stimuli of lower contrast and spatial frequency, while the PVEP amplitude is larger and its peak time shorter for higher contrast and spatial frequency stimuli.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that PVEP and RT measures recruit distinct physiological characteristics and appear to be differently modulated while travelling along the retino-cortical pathway. Our results also show the importance of obtaining electrophysiological and psychophysical measures concomitantly to insure elimination of combined inter-stimulus and inter-session variability.

Hemiretinal contribution to the timing of the full-field PVEP as determined with the motor reaction time

With the use of the simple motor reaction time (RT), we examined the contribution of the hemiretinas to the timing of the pattern reversal visual evoked potential (PVEP). RTs were obtained to the reversal of a progressively dimmer check falling either on the central, nasal, temporal, superior or inferior retina. Results were correlated with the peak time of the P1 wave evoked to the reversal of the entire checkerboard stimulus to the same luminance conditions as that used to generate the RT measurements. Our results clearly indicate that the time taken to trigger a manual response depends not only on the luminance of the stimulus, but also on where it falls on the retina. Comparing the above data with the peak time of the PVEP obtained to the reversal of the entire screen indicates that at brighter luminance the peak time of the P1 wave correlates with that measured from the most central retina, while at dimmer intensities it correlates with the mathematical average of all the retinal locations tested.

Monocular contribution to the peak time of the binocular pattern visual evoked potential

The contribution of each monocular pathway to the timing of the binocular pattern visual evoked potential was assessed in situations where a significant interocular timing discrepancy was observed. Monocular and binocular pattern visual evoked potentials to 0.5 degree checks were recorded from normal subjects, normal subjects in whom one eye was blurred, patients with monocular amblyopia, and patients with resolved unilateral optic neuritis. Normal subjects showed facilitation, while suppression was evidenced in subjects with monocular blurring. In patients with amblyopia, the affected pathway had no effect on binocular pattern visual evoked potential latency, suggesting that the amblyopic eye was suppressed. In contrast, all patients with optic neuritis showed binocular averaging. Our results show that different forms of binocular interaction are evidenced in normal subjects, in amblyopia and in optic neuritis, and suggest that a comparative analysis of monocular and binocular pattern visual evoked potential peak times brings valuable information to the clinical evaluation that could be used to distinguish disease processes further.