Temporal frequency dependence of the polarity inversion between upper and lower visual field in the pattern-onset steady-state visual evoked potential

Visual omitted stimulus potentials are not retinotopic

Omitted stimulus potentials (OSPs) are elicited in response to the omission of expected stimuli and are thought to reflect prediction errors. If prediction errors are signaled in the sensory cortex, OSPs are expected to be generated in the sensory cortex. The present study investigated the involvement of the early visual cortex in the generation of OSPs by testing whether omitted visual stimuli elicit brain responses in a spatially specific manner. Checkerboard pattern stimuli were presented alternately in the upper and lower visual fields, and the stimuli were omitted in 10 % of the trials. Event-related potentials were recorded from 33 participants. While a retinotopic C1 component was evoked by real visual stimuli, omitted stimuli did not produce any response reflecting retinotopy but did elicit a visual mismatch negativity, which was larger for omitted stimuli expected in the lower visual field than for those in the upper visual field. These results suggest that omitted visual stimuli are processed in a different pathway than actual stimuli.

Simulating the Effects of Partial Neural Conduction Delays in the Visual Evoked Potential

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to understand the double peaks or broadening of P100 observed in some cases of optic neuritis by inducing conduction delays in healthy eyes through stimulus luminance manipulation in analogy to the perceptual Pulfrich effect.

Methods

Checkerboard pattern reversal visual evoked potentials (VEPs) with check sizes of 0.8 degrees, 0.4 degrees, and 0.2 degrees were recorded in healthy participants using two experiment variants. Variant (1) involved binocular stimulation with inter-ocular luminance difference achieved by a 1.8 neutral density (ND) filter, along with monocular control conditions. Variant (2) included monocular stimulation with hemifields having a luminance difference (half of monitor with ND filter), along with single-hemifield control conditions. In both variants, VEP curves under mixed stimulation were compared to synthesized VEPs computed from offline summation of curves from the relevant control conditions, followed by assessing P100 characteristics.

Results

Despite considerable variability between participants, the binocular variant demonstrated marked differences between VEPs from mixed recordings and synthesized curves, whereas in the hemifield variant, agreement was strong. The anticipated double peak or broadened deflection pattern was observed to varying extents in participants, often contingent on check size, with nominal peak time frequently failing to indicate partial conduction delays.

Conclusions

The present findings corroborate the hypothesis that nominal peak time does not always reflect conduction delays if only a subset of fiber bundles is affected. Peak shape might provide additional diagnostic evidence of a partial conduction delay.

Translational Relevance

Enhancing the understanding of VEP waveform changes associated with partial conduction delays could offer diagnostic insights for optic neuritis.