Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Some thoughts on the interpretation of steady-state evoked potentials

  • TECHNICAL NOTE
  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Steady-state evoked potentials are popular due to their easy analysis in frequency space and the availability of methods for objective response detection. However, the interpretation of steady-state responses can be challenging due to their origin as a sequence of responses to single stimuli. In the present paper, issues of signal extinction and some characteristics of higher harmonics are illustrated based on simple model data for those readers who do not regularly hobnob with frequency-space representations of data. It is important to realize that the absence of a steady-state response does not prove the lack of neural activity. For the same underlying reasons, namely constructive and destructive superposition of individual responses, comparisons of amplitudes between experimental conditions are prone to inaccuracies. Thus, before inferring physiology from steady-state responses, one should consider an alternative explanation in terms of signal composition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. “Identical” refers to the mass responses as seen in the EEG. Responses that are macroscopically indistinguishable might nevertheless originate from different groups of neurons.

References

  1. Norcia AM, Sato T, Shinn P, Mertus J (1986) Methods for the identification of evoked response components in the frequency and combined time/frequency domains. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 65:212–226

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Victor JD, Mast J (1990) A new statistic for steady-state evoked potentials. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol 78:378–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dobie RA, Wilson MJ (1993) Objective response detection in the frequency domain. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 88:516–524

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Liavas AP, Moustakides GV, Henning G, Psarakis EZ, Husar P (1998) A periodogram-based method for the detection of steady-state visually evoked potentials. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 45:242–248

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Meigen T, Bach M (1999) On the statistical significance of electrophysiological steady-state responses. Doc Ophthalmol 98:207–232

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Müller MM, Malinowski P, Gruber T, Hillyard SA (2003) Sustained division of the attentional spotlight. Nature 424:309–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bach M, Meigen T (1999) Do’s and don’ts in Fourier analysis of steady-state potentials. Doc Ophthalmol 99:69–82

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Strasburger H, Scheidler W, Rentschler I (1988) Amplitude and phase characteristics of the steady-state visual evoked potential. Appl Optics 27:1069–1088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bach M, Maurer JP, Wolf ME (2008) VEP-based acuity assessment in normal vision, artificially degraded vision, and in patients. Brit J Ophthalmol 92:396–403

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Heinrich SP, Bach M (2001) Adaptation dynamics in pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials. Doc Ophthalmol 102:141–156

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Strasburger H (1987) The analysis of steady state evoked potentials revisited. Clin Vision Sci 1:245–256

    Google Scholar 

  12. Norcia AM, Tyler CW, Hamer RD, Wesemann W (1989) Measurement of spatial contrast sensitivity with the swept contrast VEP. Vision Res 29:627–637

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lütkenhöner B (1991) Theoretical considerations on the detection of evoked responses by means of the Rayleigh test. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) Suppl 491:52–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Simpson DM (2000) Objective response detection in an electroencephalogram during somatosensory stimulation. Ann Biomed Eng 28:691–698

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Heinrich SP (2009) Permutation-based significance tests for multi-harmonic steady-state evoked potentials. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 56:534–537

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Felix LB, Miranda de Sa AMFL, Infantosi AFC, Yehia HC (2007) Multivariate objective response detectors (MORD): statistical tools for multichannel EEG analysis during rhythmic stimulation. Ann Biomed Eng 35:443–452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mast J, Victor JD (1991) Fluctuations of steady-state veps: interaction of driven evoked potentials and the eeg. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 78:389–401

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Delgado RE, Ozdamar O (2004) Deconvolution of evoked responses obtained at high stimulus rates. J Acoust Soc Am 115:1242–1251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jewett DL, Caplovitz G, Baird B, Trumpis M, Olson MP, Larson-Prior LJ (2004) The use of QSD (q-sequence deconvolution) to recover superposed, transient evoked-responses. Clin Neurophysiol 115:2754–2775

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bohórquez J, Özdamar Ö, Açıkgöz N, Yavuz E (2007) Methodology to estimate the transient evoked responses for the generation of steady state responses. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2007:2444–2447

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mell D, Bach M, Heinrich SP (2008) Fast stimulus sequences improve the efficiency of event-related potential P300 recordings. J Neurosci Meth 174:259–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sutter EE, Tran D (1992) The field topography of ERG components in man—I. The photopic luminance response. Vision Res 32:433–446

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Smith SW (1999) The Scientist and Engineer’s Guide to Digital Signal Processing. 2nd edn., California Technical Publishing, San Diego, CA

    Google Scholar 

  24. Marmor MF, Fulton AB, Holder GE, Miyake Y, Brigell M, Bach M (2009) ISCEV standard for full-field clinical electroretinography (2008 update). Doc Ophthalmol 118:69–77

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This article emerged from a project supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (BA 877/18). I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for suggesting the use of summed z scores (Sect. 4.3).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sektion Funktionelle Sehforschung, Univ.-Augenklinik, Killianstr. 5, 79106, Freiburg, Germany

    Sven P. Heinrich

Authors
  1. Sven P. Heinrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sven P. Heinrich.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Heinrich, S.P. Some thoughts on the interpretation of steady-state evoked potentials. Doc Ophthalmol 120, 205–214 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-010-9212-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-010-9212-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation