2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Multichannel evoked potential fields show different properties of human upper and lower hemiretina systems.

      ,
      Experimental brain research
      Springer Science and Business Media LLC

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Scalp potential fields in human subjects were evoked by checkerboard reversals to the upper and lower hermiretinae, using 1.6 and 3.2 reversals/s. Averaged fields were sampled along a saggital midline row of electrodes (field profiles) in 20 subjects, and from a 47 electrode array (field maps) in five subjects. In five subjects, profile peaks and troughs between 84 and 128 ms latency resided within the recorded electrode row surrounded by lesser potential values, and thus met the evaluation criteria. Response latency defined as maximal voltage difference between two electrodes within the profiles was significantly shorter (medians 12 and 11 ms, respectively) for upper than for lower hemiretina stimuli at both frequencies. There was a significant difference between latencies to 3.2 and 1.6 stimuli/s in the upper but not in the lower hemiretina system, suggesting different system behavior of the two retinal halves. Pertinent anatomical, electrophysiological, and behavioral data are reviewed.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Exp Brain Res
          Experimental brain research
          Springer Science and Business Media LLC
          0014-4819
          0014-4819
          Mar 09 1979
          : 35
          : 1
          Article
          10.1007/BF00236791
          436986
          a334c6e6-5e31-4f80-a3bd-5526a843d23b
          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article