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.