Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD) groups manifest flash visual-evoked potential (VEP) P2 component delays compared to healthy control groups. However, using P2 latency to categorize individual patients and controls yields low accuracy. Additionally, several laboratories have failed to replicate the basic between group P2 latency findings. The sporadic failure to find the P2 delay and, when found, its failure to classify patients and controls accurately may reflect the use of non-optimal stimuli or recording sites. Objective This was a parametric investigation of stimulation and recording methods in healthy college students. Method Using an extended recording montage of 64 electrodes, 10 stimulus conditions (5 flash intensities through open and closed eyes) were evaluated for their P2 effects. Result The optimal recording site (O2) yielded the most reliable latencies and amplitudes across a range of stimulus intensities. Flash intensity did not affect P2 latency or amplitude. Flashes delivered through closed eyelids produced a flash VEP but delivery through open eyes produced a pattern VEP lacking a flash P2 component. Conclusion This accounts for the failure of some laboratories using open eyes to replicate the P2 delay in AD groups. Significance Optimal flash VEP conditions include closed eyes and recording from O2. Flash intensity is unimportant.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
