Advertisement

The Correlation of Electrophysiological and Psychophysical Measures: VECP

Chapter
Part of the Documenta Ophthalmologica book series (DOPS, volume 13)

Abstract

Electrical responses to visual stimulation are conveniently recorded without risk to human subjects: from the eye, by the use of a contact lens electrode; and from the brain, by electrodes appropriately located on the scalp.

The VECP originates from the massed activity of large numbers of cortical neurons. Individual impulse (spike) potentials do not appear on scalp electrodes because of the severe attenuation of any such signals by the intervening dura, bone and skin tissues that have a high electrical impedance. It is thus the pre-and post-synaptic graded potentials of brain cells, perhaps with the participation of glial cells, that are most likely to generate the complex series of waves that appear in the typical VECP record.

Single flash procedures, once used almost exclusively in visual electrophysiology, arc now yielding to more complex methods of stimulus presentation.

No simple comparison can be made between a subject’s report of what he sees and the VECP waves that arise from the same visual stimuli. The subjective report can describe, for example, the appearance of such complex stimuli as letters of the alphabet, people’s faces, or a landscape extending off into the distance. There is no way in which gross electrodes can differentiate among the effects of such detailed visual scenes. Nor is there any likelihood that the VECP can rival psychophysical methods for detecting stimuli that are so small that they activate only a few receptors and neural conducting units.

Despite the limitations just mentioned, the VECP has often been shown to provide reliable measurements of certain parameters of visual performance.

In summary, the VECP can be used to supplement or replace subjective methods of experimental and clinical evaluations of certain visual functions. Some limitations on the sensitivity of VECP methods have been overcome, but not those due to indirectness and diffuseness of conduction from active cortical sites to the electrodes on the surface of the scalp. Psychophysical procedures are therefore still needed, but their validity is enhanced by the adoption of forced-choice or other relatively bias-free methods of observation. The correlation between VECP and psychophysical measures is highest where the signal-to-noise ratio of each can be enhanced by application of the new advances in signal detection theory.

Keywords

Implicit Time Binocular Rivalry Scalp Electrode Psychophysical Procedure Psychophysical Measure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Egan, J. P. Signal detection theory and ROC-analysis. New York: Academic Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  2. Green, D. M. & Swets, J. A. Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley, 1966.Google Scholar
  3. MaeKay, D. M. & Jeffreys, D. A. Visually evoked potentials and visual perception in man. In Jung, R. [Ed.]. Central Visual Information B. Volume VII/3, Handbook of sensory physiology. Berlin: Springer, 1973.Google Scholar
  4. Moore, R. K. Unpublished study of the VECP at the Hunter Laboratory of Psychology, Brown University, 1976.Google Scholar
  5. Potts, A. M. & Nagaya, T. Studies on the visual evoked response. 1. The use of the 0.06 degree red target for evaluation of foveal function. Invest. Ophth., 4, 303–309 (1965).Google Scholar
  6. Regan, D. Evoked potentials in psychology, sensory physiology and clinical medicine. New York: Wiley, 1972.Google Scholar
  7. Rietveld, W. J., Tordoir, W. E. M. & Duyff, J. W. Contribution of fovea and parafovea to the visual evoked response. Acta physiol. pharm. Neerl., 13, 330–339 (1965).Google Scholar
  8. Riggs, L. A., Johnson, E. P. & Schick, A. M. L. Electrical responses of the eye to moving stimulus patterns. Science, 144, 567 (1964).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Riggs, L. A. & Wooten, B.R. Electrical measures and psychophysical data of human vision. In Jameson, D. & Hurvich, L. M. [Eds]. Visual Psychophysics. Volume VII/4, Handbook of sensory physiology. Berlin: Springer, 1972.Google Scholar
  10. Riggs, L. A. Responses of the visual system to fluctuating patterns. Amer. J. Optom. & Physiol. Optics, 51, 725–735 (1974).Google Scholar
  11. Riggs, L. A. Human vision: some objective explorations. Amer. Psychologist, 31, 125–134 (1916).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Vaughan, H. G., Jr., Costa, L. D. & Gilden, L. The functional relation of visual evoked response and reaction time to stimulus intensity. Vision Res., 6. 645–656 (1966).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wooten, B. R. Photopic and scotopic contributions to the human visually evoked cortical potential. Vision Research, 12, 1647–1660, (1972).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr W. Junk b.v. Publishers 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Walter S. Hunter Laboratory of PsychologyBrown UniversityProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations