Contrast–response functions for multifocal visual evoked potentials: A test of a model relating V1 activity to multifocal visual evoked potentials activity

Citations Over Time

Abstract

The multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) is largely generated in V1. To relate the electrical activity recorded from humans to recordings from single cells in nonhuman primate (V1) cortex, contrast-response functions for the human mfVEP were compared to predictions from a model of V1 activity (D. J. Heeger, A. C. Huk, W. S. Geisler, & D. G. Albrecht, 2000) based upon single-cell recordings from monkey V1 (e.g., D. G. Albrecht, 1995; D. G. Albrecht, W. S. Geisler, R. A. Frazor, & A. M. Crane, 2002; D. G. Albrecht & D. B. Hamilton, 1982; W. S. Geisler & D. G. Albrecht, 1997). A second purpose was to fully articulate the assumptions of this model to better understand the implications of this comparison. Finally, as the third purpose, one of these assumptions was tested. Monocular mfVEPs were obtained from normal subjects with a contrast-reversing dartboard pattern. The display contained 16 sectors each with a checkerboard. Both the sectors and the checks were scaled approximately for cortical magnification. In Experiment 1, there were 64 checks per sector. The contrast-response functions were fitted well up to 40% contrast by the theoretical population curve for V1 neurons; there was a systematic deviation for higher contrasts. The model, as articulated here, predicts that the contrast-response function should be the same and independent of the size of the elements in the display. Varying the size of the elements by varying the viewing distance in Experiment 2 produced similar results to those in Experiment 1. In Experiment 3, the viewing distance and sector size were held constant, but the size of the elements (and therefore the number of checks per sector) was varied. Changing check size by a factor of 16 had relatively little effect on the contrast-response function. In general, the mfVEP results were consistent with the model based upon the V1 neuron population. However, two aspects of the results require further exploration. First, there was a systematic deviation from the model's contrast-response function for higher contrasts. This deviation suggests that one or more of the model's assumptions may be violated. Second, the latency of the mfVEP changed far less than expected based upon single-cell data.

Related Papers

• → Comparison of plain and checkerboard stimuli for brain computer interfaces based on steady state visual evoked potentials(2013)10 cited
• → Visual evoked potentials response to different colors and intensities(2015)4 cited
• Comparison Of Visual Evoked Potentials As Responses To Checkerboard Reversal Stimuli Versus Dartboard Pattern Reversal Stimuli Presented With A Software Based System(2006)
• → Analysis of the Effect of Temporal Frequency on the Dichoptic Visual-Evoked Response(1982)
• [The effect of amplitude-frequency characteristics of the noise-covered test stimulus on the form of visual evoked potentials].(2008)