Flicker VEPs reflecting multiple rod and cone pathways

Modulation of the neuronal response in human primary visual cortex by re-entrant projections during retinal input processing as manifest in the visual evoked potential

Initial deflections in the visual evoked potential (VEP) reflect the neuronal process of extracting features from the retinal input; a process not modulated by re-entrant projections. Later deflections in the VEP reflect the neuronal process of combining features into an object, a process referred to as 'object closure' and modulated by re-entrant projections. Our earlier work indicated that the VEP reflects independent neuronal responses processing temporal - and spatial luminance contrast and that these responses arise from an interaction between forward and re-entrant input. In this earlier work, changing the temporal luminance contrast property of a stimulus altered its spatial luminance contrast property. We recorded the VEP in 12 volunteers viewing image pairs of a windmill, regular dartboard or an RMS dartboard rotated by either Π/4, Π/2, 3Π/4 or Π radians with respect to each other. The windmill and regular dartboard had identical white to black ratio, while the two dartboards identical contrast edges per unit area. Rotation varied temporal luminance contrast of a stimulus without affecting its spatial luminance contrast. N75, P100, N135 and P240 amplitude and latency were compared and a source localisation and temporal frequency analysis performed. P100 amplitude signals a neuronal response processing temporal luminance contrast that is modulated by re-entrant projections with fast axonal conduction velocities. N135 and P240 signal the neuronal response processing spatial luminance contrast and is modulated by re-entrant projections with slow axonal conduction velocities. The dorsal stream is interconnected by fast axonal conduction velocities, the ventral stream by slow axonal conduction velocities.

An investigation into the relationship between stimulus property, neural response and its manifestation in the visual evoked potential involving retinal resolution

The visual evoked potential (VEP) has been shown to reflect the size of the neural population activated by a processing mechanism selective to the temporal - and spatial luminance contrast property of a stimulus. We set out to better understand how the factors determining the neural response associated with these mechanisms. To do so we recorded the VEP from 14 healthy volunteers viewing two series of pattern reversing stimuli with identical temporal-and spatial luminance contrast properties. In one series the size of the elements increased towards the edge of the image, in the other it decreased. In the former element size was congruent with receptive field size across eccentricity, in the later it was incongruent. P100 amplitude to the incongruent series exceeded that obtained to the congruent series. Using electric dipoles due the excitatory neural response we accounted for this using dipole cancellation of electric dipoles of opposite polarity originating in supra- and infragranular layers of V1. The phasic neural response in granular lamina of V1 exhibited magnocellular characteristics, the neural response outside of the granular lamina exhibited parvocellular characteristics and was modulated by re-entrant projections. Using electric current density, we identified areas of the dorsal followed by areas of the ventral stream as the source of the re-entrant signal modulating infragranular activity. Our work demonstrates that the VEP does not signal reflect the overall level of a neural response but is the result of an interaction between electric dipoles originating from neural responses in different lamina of V1.

Scotopic multifocal visual evoked potentials

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the scope of scotopic multifocal visual evoked potentials (mfVEP_S) for the assessment of scotopic visual fields.

METHODS

Pattern-reversal mfVEP for photopic (mfVEP_P) and scotopic conditions (mfVEP_S; 0.003 cd/m²) were recorded from 36 visual field locations of a circular checkerboard pattern (25° radius) in 9 participants with normal vision. MfVEP_P were recorded with a conventional central fixation cross, mfVEP_S were recorded (i) with (mfVEP_S+) and (ii) without (mfVEP_S-) an additional fixation aid. Latency shifts were determined using cross-correlations, mfVEP magnitudes were analysed in an eccentricity dependent manner using signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs).

RESULTS

In comparison to mfVEP_P, mfVEP_S- and mfVEP_S+ were delayed by 101 ms and 97 ms, respectively, and had smaller signal-to-noise-ratios. Both mfVEP_S were reduced down to noise level in the center and also severely reduced for the most peripheral stimulus eccentricity used. The visual-field-coverage for the paracentral eccentricities of mfVEP_S+ and mfVEP_S- was 76% and 65% [4°-9°], respectively, and 79% and 66% [9°-16°].

CONCLUSIONS

MfVEP_S were delayed compared to mfVEP_P and demonstrated the expected central response drop-out typical for scotopic vision.

SIGNIFICANCE

MfVEP_S may hold promise of an objective, spatially resolved visual field test which motivates testing it in patients with diseases affecting scotopic vision.

[Functional examinations of visual channels: physiological basis]

In this paper, technical details of visual evoked potentials (VEP) assessment and pattern electroretinography (PERG) are reviewed. Both methods are used to perform an objective functional examination of visual channels and to clarify the level, at which they have been damaged. Contributions of parvo- (P), magno- (M) and koniocellular (K) systems to the morphology of PERG and VEP responses are discussed with account to test conditions, selectively supportive of the activity of particular cell populations. The review analyzes the physiological role of such stimulation parameters as brightness and color contrast of the pattern elements as well as spatial and temporal frequency in detecting dysfunction of color channels and mistuning of the P- and M- pathways. Different times taken for neuronal integration and signal conduction along the M- and P- pathways determine the timing of the P- and M- VEP components, allowing us to judge their contribution to VEP morphology from the same recording.

To see or not to see; the ability of the magno- and parvocellular response to manifest itself in the VEP determines its appearance to a pattern reversing and pattern onset stimulus

INTRODUCTION

The relationship between stimulus property, brain activity, and the VEP is still a matter of uncertainty.

METHOD

We recorded the VEP of 43 volunteers when viewing a series of dartboard images presented as both a pattern reversing and pattern onset/offset stimulus. Across the dartboard images, the total stimulus area undergoing a luminance contrast change was varied in a graded manner.

RESULTS

We confirmed the presence of two independent neural processing stages. The amplitude of VEP components across our pattern reversing stimuli signaled a phasic neural response based on a temporal luminance contrast selective mechanism. The amplitude of VEP components across the pattern onset stimuli signaled both a phasic and a tonic neural response based on a temporal- and spatial luminance contrast selective mechanism respectively. Oscillation frequencies in the VEP suggested modulation of the phasic neural response by feedback from areas of the dorsal stream, while feedback from areas of the ventral stream modulated the tonic neural response. Each processing stage generated a sink and source phase in the VEP. Source localization indicated that during the sink phase electric current density was highest in V1, while during the source phase electric current density was highest in extra-striate cortex. Our model successfully predicted the appearance of the VEP to our images whether presented as a pattern reversing or a pattern onset/offset stimulus.

CONCLUSIONS

Focussing on the effects of a phasic and tonic response rather than contrast response function on the VEP, enabled us to develop a theory linking stimulus property, neural activity and the VEP.

An Event-related Potential Study on the Interaction between Lighting Level and Stimulus Spatial Location

Due to heterogeneous photoreceptor distribution, spatial location of stimulation is crucial to study visual brain activity in different light environments. This unexplored issue was studied through occipital event-related potentials (ERPs) recorded from 40 participants in response to discrete visual stimuli presented at different locations and in two environmental light conditions, low mesopic (L, 0.03 lux) and high mesopic (H, 6.5 lux), characterized by a differential photoreceptor activity balance: rod > cone and rod < cone, respectively. Stimuli, which were exactly the same in L and H, consisted of squares presented at fixation, at the vertical periphery (above or below fixation) or at the horizontal periphery (left or right). Analyses showed that occipital ERPs presented important L vs. H differences in the 100 to 450 ms window, which were significantly modulated by spatial location of stimulation: differences were greater in response to peripheral stimuli than to stimuli presented at fixation. Moreover, in the former case, significance of L vs. H differences was even stronger in response to stimuli presented at the horizontal than at the vertical periphery. These low vs. high mesopic differences may be explained by photoreceptor activation and their retinal distribution, and confirm that ERPs discriminate between rod- and cone-originated visual processing.

Interactions between rod and L-cone signals in deuteranopes: gains and phases

The dynamics of interactions between rod and L-cone driven signals were studied psychophysically in two deuteranopic observers. Flicker detection thresholds for different ratios of rod to L-cone modulation were measured at temporal frequencies between 1 and 15 Hz. A model, which assumes that rod and L-cone driven signals are vector added, can describe the threshold data adequately. We found that up to about 8-10 Hz temporal frequency, rod and L-cone signals interact additively, whereas at higher frequencies the interaction is subtractive. Rod and L-cone signal strengths depend similarly on temporal frequency and are maximal between 3 and 5 Hz. The phase difference between rod and L-cone signals increases linearly with temporal frequency, indicating that their responses have a delay difference of about 20 to 30 ms, consistent with involvement of the faster rod pathway. The data would suggest a nearly complete additivity of the rod and cone driven signals when using flashed stimuli. But, literature data showed only partial additivity of the two, suggesting that different postreceptoral mechanisms are involved in the two tasks.