IOVS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Order Full text via Infotrieve
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Trick, G. L.
Right arrow Articles by Compton, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Trick, G. L.
Right arrow Articles by Compton, J. R.

Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, Vol 22, 394-401, Copyright © 1982 by Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology

ARTICLES AND REPORTS

Interocular luminance differences and the binocular pattern-reversal visual-evoked response

GL Trick, WW Dawson and JR Compton

Although the visual-evoked response (VER) is frequently used to assess binocularity, the contribution of the monocular components to the binocular VER is poorly understood. To more fully elucidate this relationship, we examined checkerboard (14 min arc checks) pattern- reversal (3.75 Hz) VERs evoked from observers with normal binocularity, with conditions in which interocular luminance differences (from 0.3 to 2.0 log units) were established. When compared with monocular VERs obtained with similar luminances, the binocular response was always less than the sum of the component monocular responses. In addition, the amplitude of the binocular signal was dependent on the amount of interocular luminance the difference. For interocular luminance differences of less than 0.6 log units the amplitude of the binocular response was consistently greater than either corresponding monocular VER. When the interocular luminance difference was 1.3 log units or greater the amplitude of the binocular response fell below the level of either corresponding monocular response. Furthermore, it does not appear that these results can be attributed to a passive spread of electrical potentials from monocular cortical cell populations. We therefore suggest that these results indicate the activity of a binocular neural process.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1982 by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology