The pattern-pulse multifocal visual evoked potential

PURPOSE: To define the pattern-pulse multifocal visual evoked potential (PPMVEP) and determine its characteristics in a sample of normal subjects in terms of amplitude of response attainable, the variation in waveform across visual field, and distribution of potential over the scalp and to compare pattern-pulse with contrast-reversal multifocal stimuli. METHODS: VEPs were obtained by concurrently stimulating 60 regions of a cortically scaled dartboard with pulses of pattern contrast. Responses were recorded from normal subjects, by using a 32-channel electroencephalogram recording system, and elementary responses to each region were estimated by multiple regression of each of the response channel signals on stimulus signals. Left-eye, right-eye, and binocular viewing conditions were concurrently tested by dichoptic stimulation. A direct comparison was then made with contrast-reversal stimulation. RESULTS: Response waveform sets for 12 subjects varied in maximum amplitude from 1.8 to 6.8 micro V. A stereotypical distribution of waveforms held in most subjects, depending primarily on the polar angle location of the stimulus within the visual field. In a direct comparison with a contrast-reversal multifocal analysis, the pattern-pulse responses had similar waveforms and scalp topography, but were 15 times larger in amplitude. Root mean square (RMS) signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was 1.9 times higher with pattern-pulse stimulation, corresponding to a reduction of 73% in recording time to achieve the same SNR. CONCLUSIONS: The PPMVEP can simultaneously characterize 60 regions of the visual field for both eyes in less than 7 minutes. A general methodology is illustrated that allows multifocal analysis with flexible choice of stimulus conditions.     

The effects of glaucoma on the latency of the multifocal visual evoked potential

AIMS: To determine the effect of glaucomatous damage on the latency of the multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP). METHODS: Monocular mfVEPs were recorded from a glaucoma group (n = 50) defined by a glaucomatous disc and an abnormal visual field and a control group (n = 47). 25 patients were characterised as normal tension glaucoma (NTG) and 25 as high tension glaucoma (HTG). Monocular and interocular latency analyses of the more affected eye were obtained using custom software. RESULTS: On interocular analysis, both the HTG and NTG groups showed a statistically significant increase in mean mfVEP latency with average relative latencies and percentage of points with significant delays of 1.7 ms and 10.3% (HTG) and 1.3 ms and 8.2% (NTG) compared to -0.3 ms and 2.7% (controls). On monocular analysis, only the HTG group showed a significant increase in latency with measures of 5.7 ms and 14.6% (HTG) compared to 3.2 ms and 10.6% (NTG) and 2.1 ms and 9.6% (controls). Using the 95th percentile of a normative group as the cut off, the sensitivity ranged from 20% to 38% and the specificity from 87% to 100% with the interocular analysis providing the best discrimination, CONCLUSION: Although up to 40% of patients showed delays in the mfVEP latency, these delays were modest, on average a few milliseconds. These results differ markedly from those of a recent conventional VEP study, which reported 100% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and an average delay that exceeded 25 ms.     

不同记录电极位置对多焦视诱发电位检查结果的影响

目的 比较不同记录电极位置对多焦视诱发电位(mf-VEP)检查结果的影响。 方法 应用RETIscan多焦视诱发电位记录系统3.20对10例正常人进行检查。记录电极位置包括两组垂直通道和两组水平通道。垂直通道作用电极和参考电极分别置于枕骨隆凸上、下方各2.0 cm（Ch1）或枕骨隆凸上方3.0 cm、下方4.5cm (Ch2)；水平通道作用电极和参考电极分别置于枕骨隆凸右、左侧各2.0 cm（Ch3）或4.0 cm (Ch4)。分别比较各通道记录的上半视野及下半视野mf-VEP的振幅之和有无显著性差异。 结果 各通道记录的上半视野及下半视野mf-VEP振幅之和的差异均有显著性的意义（F=20.273, P=0.000）；且Ch2与Ch1、Ch3、Ch4两两之间的差异也有显著性的意义（P分别为0.000 、0.000、0.001）。对于沿水平中线分布的位点，Ch2记录的mf-VEP中振幅很小的各位点的振幅之和，与Ch3、Ch4记录的mf-VEP中相应位点的振幅之和的差异有显著性的意义（F=11.304,P=0.000）；且Ch4与Ch2、Ch3两两之间的差异也有显著性的意义（P均<0.05）。 结论 与Ch1、Ch3和Ch4相比, Ch2可记录到更佳的mf-VEP。水平通道可改善垂直通道对部分位点，尤其是沿水平中线分布位点的mf-VEP的引导，其中Ch4对Ch2的改善作用较Ch3更为明显。 （中华眼底病杂志，2004，20：346-348）     

Clinical application of the multifocal visual evoked potential

Background: Measures of visual function thresholds such as visual acuity and visual fields are generally dependent on subjective responses and assume maintenance of fixation, attention and motivation. In the young, elderly, cognitively impaired or malingering populations, such measures may be inaccurate or difficult to obtain. The Visual Evoked Response Imaging System (VERIS) has been claimed to give more objective topographic recordings of retinal and cortical function. This paper aims to explore the adequacy of this technique in four unusual, unrelated, clinically difficult cases. Methods: Multifocal visual evoked potentials (mfVEPs) recorded on the VERIS System 3.01 are used to assess visual function in four cases with contradictory clinical findings or unreliable subjective responses. Results: Patient 1 had sustained a head injury and had normal ocular and pupil examination but light perception in the right eye and 6/5 acuity in the left. Multifocal VEPs showed a marked depression of the right visual field with little macular response. Patient 2 had sustained a head injury, had a left field hemianopia, possible macular sparing and loss of much of the right field, reduced but variable visual acuities, good near vision and normal ocular fundi. Multifocal VEPs showed a severe depression in both visual fields (L more than R) with little macular response. Patient 3 had a left optic nerve meningioma and experienced great difficulty with visual field assessment. mfVEPs showed a bilateral depression in the superior field particularly the left field, with a larger deficit in the left eye. Patient 4 had unexplained visual acuity and peripheral field deficits. mfVEP results were inconclusive in this case. Discussion: Where there is difficulty performing traditional techniques or conflicting clinical findings, mfVEPs may provide additional objective information to aid in the assessment of patients.     

多焦视觉诱发电位和海德堡视网膜断层扫描检查在青光眼诊断中的比较

目的比较多焦视觉诱发电位（mVEP）和海德堡视网膜断层扫描（HRT）检查在诊断青光眼功能和结构改变时的灵敏度（Se）和特异度（Sp）以及检查结果的一致性。方法对49例青光眼患者和30例正常志愿者分别行Humphrey视野（HVF）、mVEP和HRT-Ⅱ检查,各选一侧眼纳入研究,评价诊断检查的真实性和可靠性以及3种检查的一致性。结果对照组视野平均缺损（MD）为（-0.4±1.8）dB,模式标准差（PSD）为（-0.4±1.8）dB。试验组MD为（-7.0±6.0）dB,PSD为（6.5±3.7）dB。mVEP的灵敏度、特异度和Kappa值分别为92%、97%和86.82%。HRT-Ⅱ的灵敏度、特异度和Kappa值分别为61%～82%、93%～97%和51.85%～71.73%。HVF和mVEP之间不同视野区域所显示的缺损呈现出高度一致性;而HVF和mVEP中视野缺损对应区域,与HRT-Ⅱ所显示的视盘结构异常一致性较差。HRT-Ⅱ诊断青光眼时moorfield回归分析分类、FSM判别函数和RB判别函数的ROC曲线下面积分别为：0.87（95%CI：0.76～0.92）、0.78（95%CI：0.68～0.89）、0.86（95%CI：0.73～0.91）。结论 mVEP和HRT-Ⅱ客观检查能探测青光眼损害,但一致性较差。HVF和mVEP检查的一致性优于各自与HRT-Ⅱ结构检查的一致性。但为了确保不漏诊,可考虑采用HVF、HRT-Ⅱ和mVEP三联平行诊断试验来提高青光眼诊断的灵敏度。     

弱视儿童多焦视觉诱发电位的分析

目的分析儿童多焦视觉诱发电位的变化,探讨弱视眼视野各部位视功能的损害。方法采用多焦视觉电生理仪检查54只弱视眼,并与48只正常眼结果比较。结果弱视眼mfVEP振幅密度的下降和潜伏期的延长在中央视野较显著,在周边部分无明显差异。弱视程度与振幅密度及潜伏期之间存在相关性。结论儿童弱视眼在视野中央部分视功能下降较显著。     

Study for analysis of the multifocal visual evoked potential

Purpose

To introduce the clinical utility of the absolute value of the reconstructed waveform method in the analysis of multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP).

Methods

The mfVEP with 4-channel recording was performed using RETIscan® on 10 eyes of 10 normal subjects. Amplitudes were obtained from ring-shaped 6 areas and 4 sectors. The best visual evoked potential (VEP) response method and the absolute value of the reconstructed waveform method were compared in terms of analysis of the amplitudes. In order to assess the false positive rate of the examination, stimuli were administered with one-half of the cathode ray tube (CRT) monitor completely covered and the results were compared using 2 methods.

Results

The amplitudes in 6 areas and 4 sectors analyzed with the best VEP response method and the absolute value of the reconstructed waveform method showed no statistical difference (p > 0.05). The amplitude in the stimuli-blocked area of the absolute value of the reconstructed waveform method was smaller than that of the best VEP response method (p < 0.05) and the amplitude of the stimuli area showed no substantial difference between two methods (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

The absolute value of the reconstructed waveform method has similar reproducibility and lower level of false positives relative to the best VEP response method. Therefore, it can be considered as a useful method in the analysis of the mfVEP.     

正常人多焦视觉诱发电位的特征

目的 探讨正常人多焦视觉诱发电位（multifocal visual evoked potential，mf-VEP）的特征，为其临床应用提供正常参考值。 方法 应用VERIS Science^TM 4.0视觉诱发反应图像系统对37例正常人70只眼进行mf-VEP检测。刺激图形为包含60个小块的飞镖盘，对应的视角为25°，m-系列长度为2¹⁴-1，电极记录采用跨枕部双极记录法，放大器的放大倍数为100 K，通频带为3~100 Hz，通过VERIS软件分析mf-VEP的二阶一次 反应，并对不同刺激视野区域的mf-VEP分为上下1/2视野、4个象限视野组以及按年龄（≥5 0岁和<50岁组）、性别和眼别等分组进行比较。 结果 mf-VEP潜伏期和振幅反应密度在上下1/ 2视野差异有显著性的意义（P均<0.05）；4个象限视野分组比较，差异有显著性的意义（P<0.05）；≥50岁和<50岁年龄组组间比较，部分视野分区潜伏期延长（P<0.05）；女性潜伏期短于男性，差异有显著性的意义（P均<0.05）；双眼的潜伏期和振幅反应密度在各视野分区无明显差别（P均>0.05），具有一定的对称性。 结论 正常人mf-VEP具有一定的特征，能客观地反映不同视野部位的视觉诱发反应，可为临床应用提供正常参考值。 （中华眼底病杂志，2003，19：269-332）     

黄斑病变的多焦视觉诱发电位检测

目的记录几种类型黄斑病变的多焦视觉诱发电位(mfVEP)变化，探讨mfVEP测试黄斑病变视功能变化的可行性。方法采用VERIS多焦视觉电生理仪测量31只黄斑病变眼和32只正常对照眼的mfVEP，将测试野分为上下两半，再分别由内向外分为3个环。两组对比分析每环mfVEP的二阶一次反应。结果黄斑病变眼上下半视野的中央环mfVEP的P1波潜伏期延长，N1-P1及P1-N2振幅降低，以下半视野的改变更为明显。结论mfVEP可以检测出黄斑病变的视功能损害。     

正常儿童多焦视觉诱发电位的特征

目的：分析正常儿童多焦视觉诱发电位（multifocalvisual evoked potential,mfVEP）的特征,为其临床应用提供正常参考值.方法：采用法国Vision Monitor视觉电生理检察系统对50例正常儿童66眼进行mfVEP检查,观察mfVEP的P1波和N2波振幅密度和潜伏期,分析性别、年龄、眼别对正常儿童mfVEP之P1波和N2波振幅密度和潜伏期的影响.结果：正常儿童mfVEP之P1波和N2波振幅密度在视野中央最大,随离心度的增加迅速减小;潜伏期在视野中央最小,一般随离心度的增加逐渐延长;性别与P1波的潜伏期有相关性（P=0.014）,与P1波的振幅密度及N2波的振幅密度和潜伏期没有相关性（P＞0.05）,而年龄、眼别与mfVEP之P1波和N2波的振幅密度和潜伏期无相关性（P＞0.05）.结论：正常儿童mfVEP具有一定特征,能够反映视野不同部位的视觉诱发反应,可为临床应用提供正常参考值.     

多焦图形视觉诱发电位在视野 不同区域的分布特性 

目的探讨多焦图形视诱发电位在视野不同区域的分布特性。方法用VERIS Science^TM4.0电生理记录系统记录14例正常人的多焦图形视诱发电位(visual evoked po tential,VEP)。刺激图形为带图形的飞镖盘, 以伪随机二元m-系列对26°视野范围的60个不同部位进行图形翻转刺激。电极安放采用枕部的双极记录。分析2次反应的第1片。把60个小块的反应组合成不同的区域进行分析比较。 结果上半视野和下半视野的多焦VEP反应极性相反,上半视野P₁波潜伏期较长,反应密度较低。随离心度增加,多焦VEP反应密度降低。水平区域的多焦VEP反应与垂直区域有不同。 结论用多焦VEP方法可以在短时间内记录到视野范围内多个不同部位的VEP反应。视野不同区域的多焦VEP各有其特点。 (中华眼底病杂志,2001,17:280-283)     

外斜儿童多焦视觉诱发电位特征性变化

目的研究外斜儿童多焦视觉诱发电位的特征性变化。方法采用德国Roland公司生产的RETIScan3.20多焦视觉电生理仪,对103例外斜患儿和30名正常对照组儿童进行多焦视觉诱发电位的检测,进行视网膜不同区域的比较。结果外斜组特征峰的振幅反应密度第1环为(710.31±13.54)nV·deg-2,低于正常对照组(835.29±11.02)nV·deg-2;外斜组特征峰隐含值第1环为(109.9±10.8)ms,长于正常对照组(103.8±11.1)ms,两者差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。外斜组颞侧视网膜特征峰隐含值(106.9±3.1)ms,长于正常对照组(102.3±2.1)ms,两者差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);外斜组下半侧视网膜特征峰隐含值(108.6±3.4)ms,长于正常对照组(106.4±2.2)ms,两者差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论外斜组的视觉传导通路的损害中心重于周边。外斜患者颞侧视网膜、下半视网膜视神经传导通路有损害。外斜的机能及形态学异常可能存在于从神经节细胞到视皮层的整个通路中,而不是单独某个层面受损。     

AccuMaP多焦视觉诱发电位客观视野检查在黄斑疾病视功能检测中的应用

目的 探讨AccuMap多焦视觉诱发电位(mfVEP)客观视野检查在黄斑疾病视功能检测中的应用价值.方法 临床确诊为黄斑疾病的37例患者46只眼纳入研究.采用AccuMap mfVEP客观视野计检测患者半径为2.0°、5.5°、10.0°、15.5°和24.0°中心视野的平均反应振幅值.应用概率灰度图和系统自动计算出的AccuMap视野损伤严重程度指数(ASI)表示视野区域缺失情况.同时,采用MP-1微视野计检测患者半径为2.0°、4.0°、6.0°、8.0°和10.0°中心视野的平均光敏感度(MS)和半径为10.0°中心视野的平均缺失敏感度(MD).对比分析患者最小视角对数(logMAR)最佳矫正视力(BCVA)、平均反应振幅、MS、ASI及MD之间的相关性.结果 AccuMap mfVEP客观视野计检测显示,46只患眼中43只眼ASI异常,且概率灰度图上有明确的视野缺失,占93.45%;3只眼ASI正常,且概率灰度图上无视野缺失,占6.55%.半径为2.0°、5.5°、10.0°、15.5°和24.0°中心视野的平均反应振幅值分别为(120.78±52.91)、(134.31±54.67)、(149.99±52.42)、(156.69±48.30)和(157.54±45.07)nV;ASI值平均为74.26±52.43.MP-1微视野计检测显示,半径为2.0°、4.0°、6.0°、8.0°和10.0°中心视野的MS值分别为(10.97±5.91)、(12.71±5.13)、(13.71±4.53)、(14.23±4.18)、(14.48±3.86)dB;半径为10.0°中心视野的MD值为(4.49±3.07)dB.ASI、各半径中心视野的平均反应振幅与患眼logMAR BCVA间均存在明显相关性(P＜0.05).半径为2.0°、5.5°、10.0°中心视野的平均反应振幅与半径为2.0°、6.0°和10.0°中心视野的MS呈明显正相关(r=0.477,0.432,0.433;P=0.001,0.003,0.003).ASI与半径为10.0°中心视野的MD呈明显正相关(r=0.729,P=0.000).结论 AccuMap mfVEP客观视野检查能客观反映黄斑功能改变,可应用于黄斑疾病的视功能检测.

Abstract：

Objective To evaluate the value of AccuMap multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) objective perimetry in measuring visual function of macular diseases. Methods Forty-six eyes (37 patients)with macular diseases were studied. The mean mfVEP amplitudes of central visual field within radius 2.0°,5.5°, 10.0°, 15.5° and 24.0°were measured by AccuMap mfVEP objective perimetry. Automatically calculated AccuMap severity index (ASI) represented the visual field defects. Meanwhile, the mean sensitivity (MS) of central visual field within radius 2. 0°, 4.0°, 6.0°, 8. 0° and 10. 0° and mean defect (MD) of central visual field within radius 10.0° were assessed by MP-1 microperimeter. The correlations among those parameters including logMAR visual acuity, mean mfVEP amplitudes, MS, ASI and MD were analyzed. Results Among 46 affected eyes, AccuMap mfVEP objective perimetry showed abnormal ASI with visual field defects in 43 eyes (93.45%), normal ASI without visual field defects in three eyes (6. 55 %). The mean mfVEP amplitudes value of the central visual field within radius of 2.0°, 5.5°, 10. 0°,15.5°and 24.0° were (120.78±52.91), (134.31±54.67), (149.99±52.42), (156.69±48.30),(157.54±45.07) nV respectively. The mean ASI value was 74. 26±52.43. MP-1 showed that the MS values of central visual field within radius 2.0°, 4.0°, 6.0°, 8. 0° and 10. 0° were (10. 97±5.91), (12. 71±5. 13), (13. 71±4. 53), (14.23±4. 18), (14.48±3. 86) dB respectively. The MD value of central visual field within radius 10° was 4.49± 3.07. There was a significant correlation among ASI, the mean mfVEPamplitudes of central visual field with every radius and logMAR best corrected visual acuity (P＜0. 05). The mean mfVEP amplitudes of central visual field within radius 2. 0°, 5. 5°, 10.0° were positively correlated with the MS of central visual field within radius 2. 0°, 6. 0°, 10.0° (r=0. 477, 0. 432, 0. 433; P=0. 001,0. 003, 0. 003). Furthermore, ASI was also correlated with MD of central visual field within radius 10.0°(r=0. 729, P = 0. 000). Conclusions AccuMap mfVEP objective perimetry can reflect the changes of macular function objectively and can be used to assess the visual function of macular diseases.     

The spatial distribution of selective attention assessed using the multifocal visual evoked potential

To determine the manner in which attention is distributed among numerous locations in the visual space, we used a multifocal recording technique that allowed simultaneous recordings of evoked cortical activity from 12 visual field areas out to 23.6 degrees. We found that multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) amplitude was larger when a region of visual space was attended than when it was not attended. The magnitude of this effect was inversely related to visual field eccentricity and there was no attention-related modulation of VEP amplitude for the most eccentric region. In addition, we found that mfVEP amplitudes in the regions contiguous to the attended region could also be larger, depending upon their spatial relationship to the attended region. Specifically, amplitudes in more central regions on the 'meridian of attention' were larger when the subject attended anywhere along that meridian.     

The diagnostic significance of the multifocal pattern visual evoked potential in glaucoma.

The concept of objective perimetry is an exciting one because it strives to assess glaucoma damage without relying on psychophysical testing. The recent introduction of multifocal stimulus recording has enhanced our ability to examine the human visual field using electrophysiology. A multifocal pattern visual evoked potential can now be recorded, testing up to 60 sites within the central 25 degrees. The test requires only that the subject fixate on a target, while a cortically scaled dartboard pattern stimulus undergoes pseudorandom alternation within each of the test segments. In its present configuration the test requires at least 8 minutes recording time per eye. Modified bipolar electrode positions are required to ensure that adequate signals are detected from all parts of the visual field. In glaucoma patients, pattern visual evoked potential amplitudes have been shown to reflect visual field loss with reduction of signal amplitude in the affected areas. This technique represents the first major step toward objective detection of visual field defects in glaucoma.     

Objective perimetry using the multifocal visual evoked potential in central visual pathway lesions

AIMS: To examine the ability of the multifocal pattern visual evoked potential (mVEP) to detect field loss in neurological lesions affecting the visual pathway from the chiasm to the cortex. METHOD: The mVEPs recorded in the clinic were retrospectively reviewed for any cases involving central neurological lesions. Recordings had been performed with the AccuMap V1.3 objective perimeter, which used an array of four bipolar occipital electrodes to provide four differently oriented channels for simultaneous recording. 19 patients with hemianopias were identified. Of these there were 10 homonymous hemianopias with hemifield type loss, two bitemporal hemianopias, and seven homonymous hemianopias with quadrantanopic distribution. A comparison with subjective field results and CT/MRI findings was done to determine the relation between the two methods of visual field mapping and any relation with the anatomical location of the lesion and the mVEP results. RESULTS: In all hemianopic type cases (12) the defect was demonstrated on the mVEP and showed good correspondence in location of the scotoma (nine homonymous and two bitemporal). The topographic distribution was similar but not identical to subjective testing. Of the seven quadrantanopic type hemianopias, only four were found to have corresponding mVEP losses in the same areas. In the three cases where the mVEP was normal, the type of quadrantanopia had features consistent with an extra-striate lesion being very congruous, complete, and respecting the horizontal meridian. CONCLUSIONS: The mVEP can detect field loss from cortical lesions, but not in some cases of homonymous quadrantanopia, where the lesion may have been in the extra-striate cortex. This supports the concept that the mVEP is generated in V1 striate cortex and that it may be able to distinguish striate from extra-striate lesions. It implies caution should be used when interpreting "functional" loss using the mVEP if the visual field pattern is quadrantic.     

多焦视觉诱发电位在原发性青光眼诊断中的应用

目的比较青光眼患者和正常人多焦视觉诱发电位（multifocal visilal evoked potential．mVEP）的差异,以探讨mVEP在原发性青光眼诊断中的作用。方法49例原发性青光眼患者和30例正常人分别行双眼mVEP检查,进而各选一眼纳入研究．采用student—t检验．对比分析两组的信噪比（signal to noise ratio．SNR）和潜伏期。并与视野检查结果行相关性分析。结果正常人潜伏期为（97．84±8．22）ms,青光眼患者潜伏期为（108．40±15．29）mS,两组相比,青光眼患者的潜伏期明显延长（P〈0．011;正常人的信噪比为2．63±0．59,青光眼患者信噪比为2．19±0．74,两组相比,青光眼患者的信噪比明显降低（P〈0．011。经相关性分析,信噪比与视野平均缺损fmeandeviation,MD）具有显著正相关（r=0．64,P〈0．05）;潜伏期与MD具有负相关（r=-0．47,P〈0．051。结论mVEP能较客观地反映青光眼患者不同视野区域的视功能损害情况：在评价mVEP方面．信噪比优于潜伏期。     

多焦视皮质诱发电位检查对白内障患者术后视力的预测(英文)

目的:评价术前多焦视皮质诱发电位(multifocal visual evoked potential,mVEP)检查对白内障术后视力的预测价值。方法:随机选取白内障患者共52例60眼,其中老年性白内障27例30眼,合并青光眼的白内障25例30眼(青光眼均为慢性闭角型缓解期或慢性进行期),术前对其行mVEP检查,另取正常对照组30眼。所有患者均行超声乳化联合折叠人工晶状体植入术。患者于术后1wk;1,3mo复查最佳矫正视力(best corrected visual acuity,BCVA)。结果:正常对照组mVEP检测平均主波振幅和潜伏期分别是183±11nV、95±8ms,老年性白内障组平均主波振幅和潜伏期分别是177±10nV、96±8ms,2组在统计学上无显著性差异(P>0.05);合并青光眼的白内障组平均主波振幅和潜伏期分别是138±7nV、99±6ms,与正常对照组及老年性白内障组均存在显著性差异(P<0.05);白内障超声乳化联合人工晶状体植入术后BCVA≥0.8者,无明显眼底视功能改变,其mVEP中心位点主波振幅276±11nV和潜伏期93±8ms与正常对照组无显著性差异(P>0.05);而术后BCVA<0.3者,眼底视功能检查有明显改变(术后检查证实),其mVEP中心位点主波振幅221±6nV,潜伏期105±7ms,与正常对照组差异显著(P<0.05)。结论:白内障术前mVEP振幅和潜伏期的改变可用来客观判断眼底视功能损害及预测术后视力。术前mVEP正常者高度提示术后视力预后良好,而mVEP检查结果变化显著,提示伴有眼底视功能损害,术后BCVA差。因此术前mVEP检查可作为预测白内障术后视力的一种有效、客观的检查方法。