Download PDF
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2012; 229(4): 374-378
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1299170
Originalarbeit
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Early Visual Evoked Potentials: An Indicator of Bioelectrical Activity of the Lateral Geniculate Nucleus?

Frühe visuell evozierte Potenziale: ein Indikator für die bioelektrische Aktivität im Corpus geniculatum laterale?
H. Gerding
1   Department of Retinology, Klinik Pallas, Olten, Switzerland
2   Department of Ophthalmology, University of Münster, Germany
,
K. Krause †
3   Department of Optometry, Hochschule Aalen, Germany
,
M. Timmermann
1   Department of Retinology, Klinik Pallas, Olten, Switzerland
,
T. Kauffmann-Mühlmeyer
2   Department of Ophthalmology, University of Münster, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

18 September 2011

15 December 2011

Publication Date:
11 April 2012 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background: In non-human primate experiments Schroeder et al. (1992) demonstrated that visual evoked activity of the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) can be recorded on the frontolateral epidural surface of macaque monkeys. So far it is not known whether analogous visual evoked potentials can be found on the scalp surface of humans.

Methods: The search for early visual evoked responses was performed in healthy volunteers with the following technique: white Ganzfeld-flash stimulation (< 100 µsec, 0.81 cd/m2s, frequency 1.1 Hz), low frequency filter 1 Hz, high frequency filter 100 Hz (12 db/octave), averaging of 100 stimulations. A topographic map of responses was recorded at standard electroencephalography scalp positions. In addition to these methods the following parameters were modified: stimulation (flash versus checkerboard reversal, monocular versus binocular), recording of right and left hemisphere responses, frequency filtering and frequency analysis.

Results: Scalp mapping of VEP responses indicated an early reproducible response with a wide frontolateral distribution consisting of a small positive and a larger negative potential (= GER − presumed geniculatum evoked response). A closer analysis of responses was performed at 6 different standard electroencephalography scalp positions electrode positions (F2, F4, FC2, FC4, FC6, C4) in 7 healthy volunteers. At FC4 the amplitude of the GER was maximal (4.8 ± 2.9 µV). The peak latencies were: positive wave 31.8 ± 2.8 msec, negative wave 43.6 ± 2.3 msec. Monocular stimulation resulted in nearly identical responses on both hemispheres. Amplitudes increase at binocular stimulation by + 44 % compared to monocular flashes. Frequency filtering and spectrum analysis clearly demonstrate that the GER mainly consists of < 30 Hz components. A comparable response with checkerboard reversal could not be detected after averaging of 100 stimulations and a rudimentary GER was found after 5000 sweeps.

Conclusions: An early wide spread visually evoked potential could be identified in humans that seems to be identical to the surface recorded response of the LGN that was previously described in non-human primate experiments.

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund: In Versuchen an nicht humanen Primaten konnten Schroeder et al. (1992) nachweisen, dass im Corpus geniculatum laterale (LGN) generierte visuell evozierte Potenziale auf der frontolateralen Duraoberfläche abgeleitet werden können. Bislang ist nicht bekannt, ob ähnliche visuell evozierte Potenziale auf der Kopfhaut von Menschen darstellbar sind.

Methoden: Eine Aufzeichnung früher visuell evozierter Potentiale wurde an gesunden Probanden unter folgenden Bedingungen vorgenommen: Ganzfeld-Stimulation mit weißen Blitzreizen (< 100 µs, 0,81 cd/m2s, Frequenz 1,1 Hz), untere Grenzfrequenz 1 Hz, obere Grenzfrequenz 100 Hz (12 db/Oktave), Mittelwertbildung über 100 Blitzstimulationen. Es erfolgte eine topografische Kartierung evozierter Potenziale der Kopfhaut für Standard-Ableitpunkte der Elektroencephalografie. Darüber hinaus wurden folgende Untersuchungsparameter modifiziert: Stimulation (Blitz versus Schachbrettmuster-Umkehr, monokulare versus binokulare Stimulation), Ableitung auf der rechten und linken Hemisphäre, Variation der Frequenzfilter und Frequenzanalyse.

Ergebnisse: Bei Kartierung der visuell evozierten Potenziale stellte sich mit breiter frontolateraler Verteilung reproduzierbar ein frühes Potenzial, bestehend aus einer initial kleinen positiven Welle und einer größeren negativen Welle dar (= GER – presumed geniculatum evoked potential). Eine erweiterte Potenzialanalyse wurde an 7 Probanden an jeweils 6 standardisierten elektroenzephalografischen Ableitorten (F2, F4, FC2, FC4, FC6, C4) durchgeführt. Die größte mittlere Amplitude (4,8 ± 2,9 µV, Mittelwert ± Standardabweichung) stellte sich in Position FC4 dar. Die Gipfellatenz für die positive Welle betrug 31,8 ± 2,8 ms, für die negative Welle 43,6 ± 2,3 ms. Bei monokularer Stimulation zeigte sich eine nahezu identische Potenzialausbildung über beiden Hemisphären. Bei beidseitiger Stimulation war eine Amplitudenzunahme um durchschnittlich + 44 % im Vergleich zur monokularen Stimulation feststellbar. Frequenzfiltermodifikationen und Frequenzspektrumanalysen zeigten, dass das GER-Potenzial überwiegend Frequenzanteile < 30 Hz enthielt. Ein vergleichbares Potenzial konnte mit Schachbrettmuster-Umkehr-Stimulation bei Mittelung von 100 Ableitungen nicht, bei Erhöhung auf 5000 Mittelungen nur rudimentär dargestellt werden.

Schlussfolgerungen: In Untersuchungen an gesunden Probanden konnte ein flächig ausgedehntes visuell evoziertes Potenzial gefunden werden, das mit den in nicht humanen Primaten nachgewiesenen, durch das Corpus geniculatum laterale generierten Oberflächenpotenzialen identisch zu sein scheint.

Key words

lateral geniculate nucleus - LGN - evoked potentials - visual evoked potential - VECP - geniculate evoked response - GER

Schlüsselwörter

Corpus geniculatum laterale - CGL - evozierte Potenziale - visuell evozierte Potenziale - VECP - Geniculatum-evozierte Potenziale - GER
 

  • References

  • 1 Stöhr M, Dichgans J, Büttner UW. Evozierte Potentiale. SEP-VEP-AEP-EKP-MEP. 4th ed. Berlin: Springer; 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Schroeder CE, Tenke CE, Givre SJ. Subcortical contributions to the surface-recorded flash-VEP in the awake macaque. Electroenceph Clin Neurophys 1992; 84: 219-231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Klem GH, Lüders H, Jasper HH et al. The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation. In: Deuschl G, Eisen A (Eds.) Recommendations for the Practice of Clinical Neurophysiology: Guidelines of the International Federation of Clinical Physiology. Encephalograph Clin Neurophys 1999; (Suppl. 52) 3-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kraut MA, Arezzo JC, Vaughan HG. Intracortical generators of the flash VEP in monkeys. Electroenceph Clin Neurophys 1985; 62: 300-312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Moller AR, Burgess JE, Sekhar LN. Recording compound action potentials from the optic nerve in man and monkeys. Electroenceph Clin Neurophys 1987; 67: 549-555
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Saini KD, Garey LJ. Morphology of neurons in the lateral geniculate nucleus of the monkey – a Golgi study. Exp Brain Res 1981; 42: 235-248
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Oakley MT, Eason RG. Subcortical gating in the human visual system during spatial selective attention. Int J Psychophysiol 1990; 9: 105-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Yokoyama T, Sugiyama K, Nishizawa S et al. Visual evoked oscillatory response of the human optic tract. J Clin Neurophysiol 1999; 16: 391-396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Whittaker SF, Siegfried JB. Origin of wavelets in the visual evoked potential. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol 1983; 55: 91-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Schroeder CE, Tenke CE, Arezzo JC et al. Timing and distribution of flash-evoked activity in the lateral geniculate nucleus of the alert monkey. Brain Res 1989; 477: 183-195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Tobimatsu S, Shima F, Ishido S et al. Visual evoked potentials in the vicinity of the optic tract during stereotactic pallidotomy. Electroenceph Clin Neurophys 1997; 104: 274-279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Allison T, Matsumiya Y, Goff GD et al. The scalp topography of human visual evoked potentials. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol 1977; 42: 185-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Cobb WA, Dawson G. The latency and form in man of the occipital potentials evoked by bright flashes. J Physiol 1960; 152: 108-121
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cigánek L. The EEG response (evoked potential) to light stimulus in man. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol 1961; 13: 165-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Cracco RQ, Cracco JB. Visual evoked potentials in man: early oscillary potentials. Eletroenceph Clin Neurophysiol 1978; 45: 731-739
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hansen BC, Jacques T, Johnson AP et al. From spatial frequency contrast to edge predominance: the differential modulation of early visual evoked potentials by natural scan stimuli. Vis Neurosc 2011; 28: 221-237
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Harding GFA, Rubinstein MP. The scalp topography of the human visually evoked subcortical potentials. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1980; 19: 318-321
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Harding FGA, Dahnesha U. The visual evoked subcortical potential to pattern reversal stimulation. Clin Vision Sci 1986; 179-184
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kawashima S, Kobayashi Y, Nishikiori O et al. The origins of pattern reversal short latency visual evoked potential as determined by dynamic topography and the dipole tracing method. Brain Topography 1996; 8: 249-254
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kraemer M, Sjöström A. Lack of short-latency-potentials in the VEP reflects immature extra geniculate visual function in delayed visual maturation (DVM). Doc Ophthalmologica 1999; 97: 189-201
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kraemer M, Abrahamsson M, Sjöström A. The neonatal development of the light flash visual evoked potential. Doc Ophthalmologica 1999; 90: 21-39
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Pratt H, Bleich N, Berliner E. Short latency visual evoked potentials in man. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol 1982; 54: 55-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Pratt H, Bleich N, Martin WH. Short latency visual evoked potentials to flashes from light-emitting diodes. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol 1995; 96: 502-508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Siegfried JB, Lukas J. Early wavelets in the VECP. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1981; 20: 125-129
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Van Hasselt P. A short latency visual evoked potential recorded from the human mastoid process and auricle. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol 1972; 33: 517-519
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Zahn JR, Matthews P. An early peak of the pattern reversal evoked potential (PREP). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1983; 24: 793-795
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Yoneda K, Sekimoto S, Yumoto M et al. The early component of the visual evoked magnetic field. NeuroReport 1995; 6: 797-800
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Krolak-Salmon P, Hénaff MA, Tallon-Baudry C et al. Human lateral geniculate response and visual cortex respond to screen flicker. Ann Neurol 2003; 53: 73-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar