Objective To compare the effect of electrode positions on multifocal visual evoked potential(mf-VEP). Methods Ten healthy individuals were tested with RETIscan multifocal VEP system 3.20, each individual was tested with four electrode positions: the active and reference electrode were placed 2.0 cm above and below the inion in Ch1；3.0 cm above and 4.5 cm below the inion in Ch2；2.0 cm on both right and left side of the inion in Ch3 and 4.0 cm on both right and left side of the inion in Ch4. The summed amplitudes of hemifield mf-VEP were analyzed and compared according to different electrode positions. Results The difference among summed amplitudes of the upper or lower hemifield mf-VEP recorded with Ch1、Ch2、Ch3 and Ch4 was statistically significant；and the difference between Ch2 and the other channels was statistically significant too. The difference among summed amplitudes of the horizontal sites whose amplitudes were small when recorded with Ch2 and summed amplitudes of the corresponding sites recorded with Ch3 and Ch4 were statistically significant；and the difference between Ch4 and the other channels was statistically significant too. Conclusions compared to Ch1、Ch3 and Ch4, Ch2 can make a better recording of mf-VEP. As for some sites, especially those along horizontal line, horizontal electrodes could improve the amplitudes of mf-VEP recorded with vertical electrodes，and Ch4 could do better to improve the mf-VEP recorded with Ch2 than Ch3. (Chin J Ocul Fundus Dis，2004，20：346-348)
ObjectiveTo study whether the pattern visual evoked potential (P-VEP) under different spatial frequency in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is different from normal people. MethodsP-VEP examination under high (15') and low (60') spatial frequency was performed on 18 MS patients (36 eyes) treated in our department from September 2011 to April 2012 and 20 normal volunteers (40 eyes). Then, we analyzed the difference between the two groups under the above-mentioned two kinds of spatial frequency. ResultsThe latency of P100 of P-VEP under high spatial frequency in MS patients was (120.50±13.04) ms which was significantly different from (109.21±5.38) ms of normal volunteers (P < 0.05). The latency of P100 of P-VEP under low spatial frequency in MS patients was (109.57±12.87) ms, which was also significantly different from (103.31±5.45) ms of normal volunteers (P < 0.05). The amplitude of P100 of P-VEP under high spatial frequency in MS patients was (9.17±5.69)μV and it was significantly lower than that[(15.69±8.45)μv] of normal volunteers (P < 0.05). The amplitude of P100 of P-VEP under low spatial frequency in MS patients was (11.93±16.75)μV and it was not significantly different from normal volunteers[(13.47±9.24μV)]. Based on different corrected vision, the MS patients were divided into two groups (vision≥1.0 and vision < 1.0). For patients with vision≥1.0, the latency of P100 and the amplitude of P100 of P-VEP under high spatial frequency was (113.43±8.28) ms and (12.94±5.46)μV; the latency of P100 and the amplitude of P100 of P-VEP under low spatial frequency was (111.13±11.50) ms and (11.57±5.60)μV. For patients with vision < 1.0, the latency of P100 and the amplitude of P100 of P-VEP under high spatial frequency was (126.69±13.49) ms and (5.87±3.43)μV; the latency of P100 and the amplitude of P100 of P-VEP under low spatial frequency was (108.26±14.11) ms and (12.24±5.82)μV. There was no significant difference in the latency and amplitude of P100 under low spatial frequency between the two groups with different corrected vision (P > 0.05), but the latency and amplitude of P100 under high spatial frequency were both significantly different between those two groups (P < 0.05). ConclusionsCompared with normal people, MS patients feature latency delay and amplitude reduction of the P-VEP, which was more severe under high spatial frequency. P-VEP under high spatial frequency may become an important evidence to evaluate visual function of MS patients.