Developmental characteristics of visual evoked potentials to different stimulation in normal children

To determine the developmental characteristics of flash visual evoked potentials (FVEP) and pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials (PVEP) of healthy children The data were collected with a Keypoint Workstation 9033A07; 168 children (2 months-13 years) were tested with FVEP and 101 (4-13 years) we...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of neuroscience 2023-03, Vol.133 (3), p.296-306
Main Authors: Jiang, Ting-Ting, Wang, Li, Chen, Hong-Liang, Deng, Yu, Peng, Xiao-Ling, Hu, Yue
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Child
Children
Evoked Potentials, Visual
flash visual evoked potentials
Humans
Neurologic Examination
pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials
Photic Stimulation
stimulation frequency
Visual Acuity
visual field
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:To determine the developmental characteristics of flash visual evoked potentials (FVEP) and pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials (PVEP) of healthy children The data were collected with a Keypoint Workstation 9033A07; 168 children (2 months-13 years) were tested with FVEP and 101 (4-13 years) were tested with PVEP. A triphasic waveform with clear components (N2, P2, and N3) was recorded steadily after 1 year, with occurrence rates over 97% at all frequencies. FVEP latency significantly decreased with age. The amplitude difference of FVEP was greater for binocular than monocular fields. FVEP amplitude increased and amplitude differences decreased with stimulation frequency. The occurrence rate of PVEP was 100% after 4 years, and PVEP latency was significantly prolonged with age. N75 and P100 amplitudes and the N75-P100 amplitude difference increased with field of vision. FVEP can be evoked in normal children at less than 2 Hz. Stimulation frequency can be adjusted to improve early detection and verification of subclinical lesions. The PVEP waveform is simple and stable, and its results are easier to analyze and interpret than FVEP, but it is limited by visual acuity and fixation force, whereas FVEP is affected less by visual acuity. but it is necessary to establish normal reference values of each age in each laboratory because of complicated analysis. According to the specific situation of the patient (vision, fixation) and clinical demand, we need to choose the right stimulation.
ISSN:0020-7454
1543-5245
1563-5279
DOI:10.1080/00207454.2021.1912039