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

Abstract

Objective

To determine the developmental characteristics of flash visual evoked potentials (FVEP) and pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials (PVEP) of healthy children

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Keywords:

• Children
• flash visual evoked potentials
• pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials
• visual field
• stimulation frequency

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank all of the children and their parents who participated in this study.

Author contributions statement

TJ and LW were responsible for editing the manuscrip and for data acquisition. HC and YD were responsible for data acquisition.

XP was responsible for the data analysis.

YH was responsible for designing the project and making manuscript revisions.

Disclosure Statement

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there are no conflicts of interest.