Skip navigation
Skip navigation

Sparse multifocal stimuli for the detection of Multiple Sclerosis

Ruseckaite, Rasa; Maddess, Ted; Danta, Gytis; Lueck, Christian; James, Andrew

Description

We compared the diagnostic capabilities of contrast reversal and sparse pattern pulse stimulation for dichoptic multifocal visual evoked potentials (mfVEPs) measured in normal subjects and multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. Multifocal reponses were obtained from 27 normal subjects and 50 relapsing-remitting patients, 26 of whom had experienced optic neuritis (ON+). The patient groups were matched for length of disease and number of clinical attacks. Compared with the responses of normal subjects...[Show more]

dc.contributor.authorRuseckaite, Rasa
dc.contributor.authorMaddess, Ted
dc.contributor.authorDanta, Gytis
dc.contributor.authorLueck, Christian
dc.contributor.authorJames, Andrew
dc.date.accessioned2015-12-13T22:36:06Z
dc.identifier.issn0364-5134
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/76631
dc.description.abstractWe compared the diagnostic capabilities of contrast reversal and sparse pattern pulse stimulation for dichoptic multifocal visual evoked potentials (mfVEPs) measured in normal subjects and multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. Multifocal reponses were obtained from 27 normal subjects and 50 relapsing-remitting patients, 26 of whom had experienced optic neuritis (ON+). The patient groups were matched for length of disease and number of clinical attacks. Compared with the responses of normal subjects those of MS patients had significantly smaller response amplitudes, lower signal-to-noise ratios, more complex response waveforms, and longer response delays. The effects were larger for sparser stimuli. Sensitivities and specificities for the different stimulus types were estimated from receiver operator characteristic (ROC) plots. Bootstrap estimates of the accuracies of the ROCs for the most promising measure, the template delays, indicated the sparsest stimulus would deliver 92% sensitivity at a false-positive rate of 0%. In contrast, at 92% sensitivity the conventional mfVEP stimulus misdiagnosed more than 20% of the normal population. The results were similar for patients with no history of ON (ON-). In performing well in patients with no history of ON, the sparse mfVEPs seem to measure progressive damage associated with axon and gray matter losses rather than damage associated with a history of serious inflammation.
dc.publisherWiley-Liss Inc
dc.sourceAnnals of Neurology
dc.subjectKeywords: adult; anamnesis; article; contrast reversal; contrast sensitivity; controlled study; diagnostic accuracy; diagnostic error; diagnostic value; disease course; evoked visual response; female; gray matter; human; inflammation; intermethod comparison; major
dc.titleSparse multifocal stimuli for the detection of Multiple Sclerosis
dc.typeJournal article
local.description.notesImported from ARIES
local.description.refereedYes
local.identifier.citationvolume57
dc.date.issued2005
local.identifier.absfor110904 - Neurology and Neuromuscular Diseases
local.identifier.absfor110906 - Sensory Systems
local.identifier.ariespublicationMigratedxPub5435
local.type.statusPublished Version
local.contributor.affiliationRuseckaite, Rasa, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, ANU
local.contributor.affiliationMaddess, Ted, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, ANU
local.contributor.affiliationDanta, Gytis, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, ANU
local.contributor.affiliationLueck, Christian, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, ANU
local.contributor.affiliationJames, Andrew, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, ANU
local.description.embargo2037-12-31
local.bibliographicCitation.issue6
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage905
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage913
local.identifier.doi10.1002/ana.20504
dc.date.updated2015-12-11T09:30:10Z
local.identifier.scopusID2-s2.0-20444421192
CollectionsANU Research Publications

Download

File Description SizeFormat Image
01_Ruseckaite_Sparse_multifocal_stimuli_for_2005.pdf173.33 kBAdobe PDF    Request a copy


Items in Open Research are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Updated:  27 November 2018/ Responsible Officer:  University Librarian/ Page Contact:  Library Systems & Web Coordinator