A subscription to JoVE is required to view this content. Sign in or start your free trial.
In this paper, we present a protocol to investigate differential cortical visual evoked potential morphological patterns through stimulation of ventral and dorsal networks using high-density EEG. Visual object and motion stimulus paradigms, with and without temporal jitter, are described. Visual evoked potential morphological analyses are also outlined.
This paper presents a methodology for the recording and analysis of cortical visual evoked potentials (CVEPs) in response to various visual stimuli using 128-channel high-density electroencephalography (EEG). The specific aim of the described stimuli and analyses is to examine whether it is feasible to replicate previously reported CVEP morphological patterns elicited by an apparent motion stimulus, designed to simultaneously stimulate both ventral and dorsal central visual networks, using object and motion stimuli designed to separately stimulate ventral and dorsal visual cortical networks. Four visual paradigms are presented: 1. Randomized visual objects with consistent temporal presentation. 2. Randomized visual objects with inconsistent temporal presentation (or jitter). 3. Visual motion via a radial field of coherent central dot motion without jitter. 4. Visual motion via a radial field of coherent central dot motion with jitter. These four paradigms are presented in a pseudo-randomized order for each participant. Jitter is introduced in order to view how possible anticipatory-related effects may affect the morphology of the object-onset and motion-onset CVEP response. EEG data analyses are described in detail, including steps of data exportation from and importation to signal processing platforms, bad channel identification and removal, artifact rejection, averaging, and categorization of average CVEP morphological pattern type based upon latency ranges of component peaks. Representative data show that the methodological approach is indeed sensitive in eliciting differential object-onset and motion-onset CVEP morphological patterns and may, therefore, be useful in addressing the larger research aim. Given the high temporal resolution of EEG and the possible application of high-density EEG in source localization analyses, this protocol is ideal for the investigation of distinct CVEP morphological patterns and the underlying neural mechanisms which generate these differential responses.
Electroencephalography (EEG) is a tool that offers an inexpensive and non-invasive approach to the study of cortical processing, especially when compared to cortical assessment methods such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), positron emission tomography (PET), and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI)1. EEG also provides high temporal resolution, which is not possible to attain when using measures such as fMRI, PET, or DTI2. High temporal resolution is critical when examining central temporal function in order to obtain millisecond-precision of neurophysiologic mechanisms related to the processing of specific input or events. In the central visual system, cortical visual evoked potentials (CVEPs) are a popular approach in studying time-locked neural processes in the cerebral cortex. CVEP responses are recorded and averaged over a number of event trials, resulting in peak components (e.g., P1, N1, P2) arising at specific millisecond intervals. The timing and amplitude of these peak neural responses can provide information concerning cortical processing speed and maturation, as well as deficits in cortical function3,4,5.
CVEPs are specific to the type of visual input presented to the viewer. Using certain stimuli in a CVEP paradigm, it is possible to observe the function of distinct visual networks such as the ventral stream, involved in processing form and color, or parvocellular and magnocellular input6,7,8, and the dorsal stream, which largely processes motion or magnocellular input9,10. CVEPs generated by these networks have been useful not only in better understanding typical neurophysiologic mechanisms underlying behavior but also in the targeted treatment of atypical behaviors in clinical populations. For example, delayed CVEP components in both dorsal and ventral networks have been reported in children with dyslexia, which suggests that visual function in both these networks should be targeted when designing an intervention plan11. Thus, CVEPs recorded via EEG offer a powerful clinical tool through which to assess both typical and atypical visual processes.
In a recent study, high-density EEG was used to measure the apparent motion-onset CVEPs in typically developing children, with the goal of examining variable CVEP responses and related visual cortical generators across development. Participants passively viewed apparent motion stimuli12,13,14,15, which consisted of both shape change and motion, designed to simultaneously stimulate dorsal and ventral streams. It was found that approximately half of the children responded with a CVEP waveform shape, or morphology, consisting of three peaks (P1-N1-P2, pattern A). This morphology is a classic CVEP response observed throughout the literature. In contrast, the other half of the children presented with a morphological pattern comprised of five peaks (P1-N1a-P2a-N1b-P2b, pattern B). To our knowledge, the robust occurrence and comparison of these morphological patterns have not previously been discussed in CVEP literature in either child or adult populations, although variable morphology has been noted in both apparent-motion and motion-onset CVEPs14,16. Furthermore, these morphological differences would not have been apparent in research using other cortical functional assessment methods, such as fMRI or PET, due to the low temporal resolution of these measures.
To determine the cortical generators of each peak in CVEP patterns A and B, source localization analyses were performed, which is a statistical approach used to estimate the most likely cortical regions involved in the CVEP response12,13. For each peak, regardless of the morphological pattern, primary and higher-order visual cortices were identified as sources of the CVEP signal. Thus, it appears that the main difference underlying CVEP morphology elicited by apparent motion is that those with pattern B activate visual cortical regions additional times during processing. Because these types of patterns have not been previously identified in the literature, the purpose of the additional visual processing in those with CVEP pattern B remains unclear. Therefore, the next aim in this line of research is to gain a better understanding of the cause of the differential CVEP morphology and whether such patterns may relate to visual behavior in both typical and clinical populations.
The first step in understanding why some individuals might demonstrate one CVEP morphology versus another is to determine whether these responses are intrinsic or extrinsic in nature. In other words, if an individual demonstrates one pattern in response to a visual stimulus, will they respond with a similar pattern to all stimuli? Or is this response stimulus-dependent, specific to the visual network or networks activated?
To answer this question, two passive visual paradigms were designed, intended to separately activate specific visual networks. The stimulus presented in the initial study was designed to stimulate both dorsal and ventral streams simultaneously; thus, it was unknown if one or both networks were involved in generating specific waveform morphology. In the current methodological approach, the paradigm designed to stimulate the ventral stream is composed of highly identifiable objects in basic shapes of squares and circles, eliciting object-onset CVEPs. The paradigm designed to stimulate the dorsal stream consists of visual motion via a radial field of coherent central dot motion dots at a fixed speed toward a fixation point, eliciting motion-onset CVEPs.
A second question that arose as a result of the initial study was whether differential VEP morphology could be due to participant anticipation of upcoming stimuli13. For instance, research has shown that top-down cortical oscillatory activity occurring prior to a target stimulus may predict subsequent CVEP and behavioral responses to some degree17,18,19. The apparent motion paradigm in the first study employed non-randomized frames of a radial star and circle with consistent inter-stimulus intervals (ISIs) of 600 ms. This design may have encouraged the expectation and prediction of the upcoming stimulus, with resulting oscillatory activity affecting subsequent CVEP morphology12,13,19.
To address this issue, the visual object and motion paradigms in the current protocol are designed with both consistent ISIs of the same temporal value and randomized ISIs with different temporal values (i.e., jitter). Using this approach, it may be possible to determine how temporal variation can affect VEP morphology within distinct visual networks. Altogether, the aim of the described protocol is to determine if the visual object and motion stimuli would be sensitive to variations in CVEP morphology and whether the temporal variation of stimuli presentation would affect characteristics of the CVEP response, including peak latency, amplitude, and morphology. For the purpose of the current paper, the goal is to determine the feasibility of the methodological approach. It is hypothesized that both visual objects and motion may elicit variable morphology (i.e., patterns A and B will be observed across subjects in response to both stimuli) and that temporal variation would affect object-onset and motion-onset CVEP components.
All methods described here have been approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for Human Research at the University of Texas at Austin.
1. Stimuli Characteristics
2. Visual Paradigm Design
3. Participant Consent, Case History, and Vision Screening
4. EEG Preparation
5. EEG Recording
6. EEG Analyses
Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the representative object-onset and motion-onset CVEP results of five participants, aged 19-24 years, who passively viewed each visual paradigm. This design allowed observation of CVEP responses elicited by visual objects (with and without jitter) and visual motion (with and without jitter) both within and across subjects according to each condition. Participant CVEPs were grouped according to the morphological pattern elicited b...
The goal of this methodological report was to evaluate the feasibility in recording differential CVEP morphology by using visual object and motion stimuli specifically designed to separately stimulate ventral and dorsal streams in passive viewing tasks6,7,8, both with and without variation of ISIs (jitter)19. Conditions were not designed to be directly compared, rather, observations were made as to whethe...
The authors have nothing to disclose.
This research was supported by the University of Texas at Austin Moody College of Communication Grant Preparation Award and the University of Texas at Austin Office of the Vice President of Research Special Research Grant.
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
E-Prime 2.0 | Psychology Software Tools, Inc | Used in data acquisition | |
Net Amps 400 | Electrical Geodesics, Inc | Used in data acquisition | |
Net Station Acquisition V5.2.0.2 | Electrical Geodesics, Inc | Used in data acqusition | |
iMac (27-inch) | Apple | Used in data acquisition | |
Optiplex 7020 Computer | Dell | Stimulus computer | |
HydroCel GSN EEG net | Electrical Geodesics, Inc | Used in data acqusition | |
1 ml pipette | Electrical Geodesics, Inc | Used to lower impedances | |
Johnson's Baby Shampoo | Johnson & Johnson | Used in impedance solution | |
Potassium Chloride (dry) | Electrical Geodesics, Inc | Used in impedance solution | |
Control III Disinfectant Germicide | Control III | Used in disinfectant solution | |
32-inch LCD monitor | Vizio | Used to present stimuli | |
Matlab (R2016b) | MathWorks | Used in data analysis | |
EEGlab v14.1.2 | Swartz Center for Computational Neuroscience, University of California, San Diego | https://sccn.ucsd.edu/eeglab/index.php | Used in data analysis |
BOSS Database | Bank of Standardized Stimuli | https://sites.google.com/site/bosstimuli/ | Used in generation of visual object stimuli |
Psychtoolbox-3 | Psychophysics Toolbox Version 3 (PTB-3) | http://psychtoolbox.org/ | Used in generation of visual motion stimuli |
Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article
Request PermissionThis article has been published
Video Coming Soon
Copyright © 2025 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved