Mechanism of binocular interaction in refraction errors: Study using pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials

Alfonsina Di Summa, Simone Fusina, Laura Bertolasi, Silvana Vicentini, Stefano Perlini, Luigi Giuseppe Bongiovanni, Alberto Polo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In this study we sought to determine whether a natural condition involving fine discrimination, for example moderately severe myopia, might yield interesting information regarding the binocular interaction expressed by visual evoked potentials (VEPs). We studied ten normal subjects with a mild refraction deficits. Transient VEPs were elicited by monocular and binocular stimulation under conditions of natural and lens-corrected vision. The visual stimulus was a pattern-reversal checkerboard consisting of 15' and 40'checks. VEPs in response to binocular stimulation were compared with monocular VEPs. We plotted the monocular 'better-VEP' and 'worse-VEP' response, since significant differences between individual eye stimulations were present. We found no significant difference between the mean N75 and P100 latencies of the binocular VEP and the better monocular VEP, regardless of the check size used and of natural or corrected vision. Under all stimulus conditions, the mean amplitude of the N75-P100 of the binocular VEPs was also larger than the better monocular VEP response. The difference proved more significant when we stimulated our subjects with smaller squares and left vision uncorrected. The mean P100-N145 amplitude obtained with binocular stimulation was larger than the better monocular VEP response only when using small checks (15') and uncorrected vision. Overlapping latencies are consistent with an earlier hypothesis that monocular and binocular VEPs originate postsynaptically from the binocular neurons in the primary visual cortex. The gain in amplitude achieved by binocular stimulation may depend upon the removal of 'tonic interocular inhibition' and/or on a cortical modulatory mechanism.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)139-151
Number of pages13
JournalDocumenta Ophthalmologica
Volume98
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1999

Fingerprint

Visual Evoked Potentials
Myopia
Visual Cortex
Individuality
Lenses

Keywords

  • Binocular vision
  • Cortical integration mechanisms
  • Refraction errors
  • Visual acuity
  • Visual evoked potentials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Mechanism of binocular interaction in refraction errors : Study using pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials. / Di Summa, Alfonsina; Fusina, Simone; Bertolasi, Laura; Vicentini, Silvana; Perlini, Stefano; Bongiovanni, Luigi Giuseppe; Polo, Alberto.

In: Documenta Ophthalmologica, Vol. 98, No. 2, 1999, p. 139-151.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Di Summa, Alfonsina ; Fusina, Simone ; Bertolasi, Laura ; Vicentini, Silvana ; Perlini, Stefano ; Bongiovanni, Luigi Giuseppe ; Polo, Alberto. / Mechanism of binocular interaction in refraction errors : Study using pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials. In: Documenta Ophthalmologica. 1999 ; Vol. 98, No. 2. pp. 139-151.
@article{74a293428d2b418e91c233b66a41873d,
title = "Mechanism of binocular interaction in refraction errors: Study using pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials",
abstract = "In this study we sought to determine whether a natural condition involving fine discrimination, for example moderately severe myopia, might yield interesting information regarding the binocular interaction expressed by visual evoked potentials (VEPs). We studied ten normal subjects with a mild refraction deficits. Transient VEPs were elicited by monocular and binocular stimulation under conditions of natural and lens-corrected vision. The visual stimulus was a pattern-reversal checkerboard consisting of 15' and 40'checks. VEPs in response to binocular stimulation were compared with monocular VEPs. We plotted the monocular 'better-VEP' and 'worse-VEP' response, since significant differences between individual eye stimulations were present. We found no significant difference between the mean N75 and P100 latencies of the binocular VEP and the better monocular VEP, regardless of the check size used and of natural or corrected vision. Under all stimulus conditions, the mean amplitude of the N75-P100 of the binocular VEPs was also larger than the better monocular VEP response. The difference proved more significant when we stimulated our subjects with smaller squares and left vision uncorrected. The mean P100-N145 amplitude obtained with binocular stimulation was larger than the better monocular VEP response only when using small checks (15') and uncorrected vision. Overlapping latencies are consistent with an earlier hypothesis that monocular and binocular VEPs originate postsynaptically from the binocular neurons in the primary visual cortex. The gain in amplitude achieved by binocular stimulation may depend upon the removal of 'tonic interocular inhibition' and/or on a cortical modulatory mechanism.",
keywords = "Binocular vision, Cortical integration mechanisms, Refraction errors, Visual acuity, Visual evoked potentials",
author = "{Di Summa}, Alfonsina and Simone Fusina and Laura Bertolasi and Silvana Vicentini and Stefano Perlini and Bongiovanni, {Luigi Giuseppe} and Alberto Polo",
year = "1999",
doi = "10.1023/A:1002190127573",
language = "English",
volume = "98",
pages = "139--151",
journal = "Documenta Ophthalmologica",
issn = "0012-4486",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mechanism of binocular interaction in refraction errors

T2 - Study using pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials

AU - Di Summa, Alfonsina

AU - Fusina, Simone

AU - Bertolasi, Laura

AU - Vicentini, Silvana

AU - Perlini, Stefano

AU - Bongiovanni, Luigi Giuseppe

AU - Polo, Alberto

PY - 1999

Y1 - 1999

N2 - In this study we sought to determine whether a natural condition involving fine discrimination, for example moderately severe myopia, might yield interesting information regarding the binocular interaction expressed by visual evoked potentials (VEPs). We studied ten normal subjects with a mild refraction deficits. Transient VEPs were elicited by monocular and binocular stimulation under conditions of natural and lens-corrected vision. The visual stimulus was a pattern-reversal checkerboard consisting of 15' and 40'checks. VEPs in response to binocular stimulation were compared with monocular VEPs. We plotted the monocular 'better-VEP' and 'worse-VEP' response, since significant differences between individual eye stimulations were present. We found no significant difference between the mean N75 and P100 latencies of the binocular VEP and the better monocular VEP, regardless of the check size used and of natural or corrected vision. Under all stimulus conditions, the mean amplitude of the N75-P100 of the binocular VEPs was also larger than the better monocular VEP response. The difference proved more significant when we stimulated our subjects with smaller squares and left vision uncorrected. The mean P100-N145 amplitude obtained with binocular stimulation was larger than the better monocular VEP response only when using small checks (15') and uncorrected vision. Overlapping latencies are consistent with an earlier hypothesis that monocular and binocular VEPs originate postsynaptically from the binocular neurons in the primary visual cortex. The gain in amplitude achieved by binocular stimulation may depend upon the removal of 'tonic interocular inhibition' and/or on a cortical modulatory mechanism.

AB - In this study we sought to determine whether a natural condition involving fine discrimination, for example moderately severe myopia, might yield interesting information regarding the binocular interaction expressed by visual evoked potentials (VEPs). We studied ten normal subjects with a mild refraction deficits. Transient VEPs were elicited by monocular and binocular stimulation under conditions of natural and lens-corrected vision. The visual stimulus was a pattern-reversal checkerboard consisting of 15' and 40'checks. VEPs in response to binocular stimulation were compared with monocular VEPs. We plotted the monocular 'better-VEP' and 'worse-VEP' response, since significant differences between individual eye stimulations were present. We found no significant difference between the mean N75 and P100 latencies of the binocular VEP and the better monocular VEP, regardless of the check size used and of natural or corrected vision. Under all stimulus conditions, the mean amplitude of the N75-P100 of the binocular VEPs was also larger than the better monocular VEP response. The difference proved more significant when we stimulated our subjects with smaller squares and left vision uncorrected. The mean P100-N145 amplitude obtained with binocular stimulation was larger than the better monocular VEP response only when using small checks (15') and uncorrected vision. Overlapping latencies are consistent with an earlier hypothesis that monocular and binocular VEPs originate postsynaptically from the binocular neurons in the primary visual cortex. The gain in amplitude achieved by binocular stimulation may depend upon the removal of 'tonic interocular inhibition' and/or on a cortical modulatory mechanism.

KW - Binocular vision

KW - Cortical integration mechanisms

KW - Refraction errors

KW - Visual acuity

KW - Visual evoked potentials

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033361941&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033361941&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1023/A:1002190127573

DO - 10.1023/A:1002190127573

M3 - Article

C2 - 10947000

AN - SCOPUS:0033361941

VL - 98

SP - 139

EP - 151

JO - Documenta Ophthalmologica

JF - Documenta Ophthalmologica

SN - 0012-4486

IS - 2

ER -