ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2014
A frequency-tagging electrophysiological method to identify central and peripheral visual field deficits.
Article in Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- What can visual electrophysiology tell about possible visual-field defects in paediatric patients.Eye (London, England) · 2021Review
- Optimal Approach for Signal Detection in Steady-State Visual Evoked Potentials in Humans Using Single-Channel EEG and Stereoscopic Stimuli.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- Central and peripheral steady-state visual evoked potentials in children with optic pathway gliomas.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to develop a fast and efficient electrophysiological protocol to examine the visual field's integrity, which would be useful in pediatric testing.
methodsSteady-state visual-evoked potentials (ssVEPs) to field-specific radial checkerboards flickering at two cycle frequencies (7.5 and 6 Hz for central and peripheral stimulations, respectively) recorded at Oz were collected from 22 participants from 5 to 34 years old and from 5 visually impaired adolescents (12-16 years old). Responses from additional leads (POz, O1, O2), and the impact of gaze deviation on the signals, were also investigated in a subgroup of participants.
resultsSteady-state visual-evoked potentials responses were similar at all electrode sites, although the signal from the central stimulation was significantly higher at Oz and was highly sensitive in detecting gaze deviation. No effect of age or sex was found, indicating similar ssVEP responses between adults and healthy children. Visual acuity was related to the central signal when comparing healthy participants with four central visual impaired adolescents. Clinical validation of our electrophysiological protocol was also achieved in a 15-year-old adolescent with a severe peripheral visual deficit, as assessed with Goldmann perimetry.
conclusionsA single electrode over Oz is sufficient to gather both central and peripheral visual signals and also to control for gaze deviation. Our method presents several advantages in evaluating visual fields integrity, as it is fast, reliable, and efficient, and applicable in children as young as 5 years old. However, a larger sample of healthy children should be tested to establish clinical norms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24817488What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.