Background: To compare objective electrophysiological contrast sensitivity function (CSF) in patients implanted with either multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) or monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) by pattern reversal visual evoked potentials (prVEP) measurements.
Methods: Fourty-five cataract patients were randomly allocated to receive bilaterally: apodized diffractive-refractive Alcon Acrysof MIOL (A), full diffractive AMO Tecnis MIOL (B) or monofocal Alcon Acrysof IOL (C). Primary outcomes: 1-year differences in objective binocular CSF measured by prVEP with sinusoid grating stimuli of 6 decreasing contrast levels at 6 spatial frequencies. Secondary outcomes: psychophysical CSF measured with VCTS-6500, photopic uncorrected distance (UDVA), and mesopic and photopic uncorrected near and intermediate visual acuities (UNVA and UIVA respectively).
Results: Electrophysiological CSF curve had an inverted U-shaped morphology in all groups, with a biphasic pattern in Group B. Group A showed a lower CSF than group B at 4 and 8 cpd, and a lower value than group C at 8 cpd. Psychophysical CSF in group A exhibited a lower value at 12 cpd than group B. Mean photopic and mesopic UNVA and UIVA were worse in monofocal group compared to the multifocal groups. Mesopic UNVA and UIVA were better in group B.
Conclusions: Electrophysiological CSF behaves differently depending on the types of multifocal or monofocal IOLs. This may be related to the visual acuity under certain conditions or to IOL characteristics. This objective method might be a potential new tool to investigate on MIOL differences and on subjective device-related quality of vision.
Background: Research suggests that the analysis of facial expressions by a healthy brain would take place approximately 170 ms after the presentation of a facial expression in the superior temporal sulcus and the fusiform gyrus, mostly in the right hemisphere. Some researchers argue that a fast pathway through the amygdala would allow automatic and early emotional treatment around 90 ms after stimulation. This treatment would be done subconsciously, even before this stimulus is perceived and could be approximated by presenting the stimuli quickly on the periphery of the fovea. The present study aimed to identify the neural correlates of a peripheral and simultaneous presentation of emotional expressions through a frequency tagging paradigm.
Methods: The presentation of emotional facial expressions at a specific frequency induces in the visual cortex a stable and precise response to the presentation frequency [i.e., a steady-state visual evoked potential (ssVEP)] that can be used as a frequency tag (i.e., a frequency-tag to follow the cortical treatment of this stimulus. Here, the use of different specific stimulation frequencies allowed us to label the different facial expressions presented simultaneously and to obtain a reliable cortical response being associated with (I) each of the emotions and (II) the different times of presentations repeated (1/0.170 ms =~5.8 Hz, 1/0.090 ms =~10.8 Hz). To identify the regions involved in emotional discrimination, we subtracted the brain activity induced by the rapid presentation of six emotional expressions of the activity induced by the presentation of the same emotion (reduced by neural adaptation). The results were compared to the hemisphere in which attention was sought, emotion and frequency of stimulation.
Results: The signal-to-noise ratio of the cerebral oscillations referring to the treatment of the expression of fear was stronger in the regions specific to the emotional treatment when they were presented in the subjects peripheral vision, unbeknownst to them. In addition, the peripheral emotional treatment of fear at 10.8 Hz was associated with greater activation within the Gamma 1 and 2 frequency bands in the expected regions (frontotemporal and T6), as well as desynchronization in the Alpha frequency bands for the temporal regions. This modulation of the spectral power is independent of the attentional request.
Conclusions: These results suggest that the emotional stimulation of fear presented in the peripheral vision and outside the attentional framework elicit an increase in brain activity, especially in the temporal lobe. The localization of this activity as well as the optimal stimulation frequency found for this facial expression suggests that it is treated by the fast pathway of the magnocellular layers.
Background: For years, studies using several animal models have highlighted the predominant role of the primary visual area in visual information processing. Its six cortical layers have morphological, hodological and physiological differences, although their roles regarding the integration of visual contrast and the messages sent by the layers to other brain regions have been poorly explored. Given that cortical layers have distinct properties, this study aims to understand these differences and how they are affected by a changing visual contrast.
Methods: A linear multi-channel electrode was placed in the primary visual cortex (V1) of the anesthetized mouse to record neuronal activity across the different cortical layers. The laminar position of the electrode was verified in real time by measuring the current source density (CSD) and the multi-unit activity (MUA), and confirmed post-mortem by histological analysis. Drifting gratings varying in contrast enabled the measurement of the firing rate of neurons throughout layers. We fitted this data to the Naka-Rushton equations, which generated the contrast response function (CRF) of neurons.
Results: The analysis revealed that the baseline activity as well as the rate of change of neural discharges (the slope of the CRF) had a positive correlation across the cortical layers. In addition, we found a trend between the cortical position and the contrast evoking the semi-saturation of the activity. A significant difference in the maximum discharge rate was also found between layers II/III and IV, as well as between layers II/III and V.
Conclusions: Since layers II/III and V process visual contrast differently, our results suggest that higher cortical visual areas, as well subcortical regions, receive different information regarding a change in visual contrast. Thus, a contrast may be processed differently throughout the different areas of the visual cortex.
