Pattern visual evoked potentials in dyslexic versus normal children

Purpose: Presence of neurophysiological abnormalities in dyslexia has been a conflicting issue. This study was performed to evaluate the role of sensory visual deficits in the pathogenesis of dyslexia. Methods: Pattern visual evoked potentials (PVEP) were recorded in 72 children including 36 childre...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Javad Heravian, Davood Sobhani-Rad, Samaneh Lari, Mohamadjavad Khoshsima, Abbas Azimi, Hadi Ostadimoghaddam, Abbasali Yekta, Seyed Hosein Hoseini-Yazdi
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Knowledge E 2015-01-01
Series:Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.jovr.org/article.asp?issn=2008-322X;year=2015;volume=10;issue=3;spage=274;epage=278;aulast=Heravian
id doaj-346f63915db64d7fb9b60265e3189ed3
record_format Article
spelling doaj-346f63915db64d7fb9b60265e3189ed32020-11-25T02:39:27ZengKnowledge EJournal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research2008-322X2015-01-0110327427810.4103/2008-322X.170361Pattern visual evoked potentials in dyslexic versus normal childrenJavad HeravianDavood Sobhani-RadSamaneh LariMohamadjavad KhoshsimaAbbas AzimiHadi OstadimoghaddamAbbasali YektaSeyed Hosein Hoseini-YazdiPurpose: Presence of neurophysiological abnormalities in dyslexia has been a conflicting issue. This study was performed to evaluate the role of sensory visual deficits in the pathogenesis of dyslexia. Methods: Pattern visual evoked potentials (PVEP) were recorded in 72 children including 36 children with dyslexia and 36 children without dyslexia (controls) who were matched for age, sex and intelligence. Two check sizes of 15 and 60 min of arc were used with temporal frequencies of 1.5 Hz for transient and 6 Hz for steady-state methods. Results: Mean latency and amplitude values for 15 min arc and 60 min arc check sizes using steady state and transient methods showed no significant difference between the two study groups (P values: 0.139/0.481/0.356/0.062). Furthermore, no significant difference was observed between two methods of PVEPs in dyslexic and normal children using 60 min arc with high contrast (P values: 0.116, 0.402, 0.343 and 0.106). Conclusion: The sensitivity of PVEP has high validity to detect visual deficits in children with dyslexic problem. However, no significant difference was found between dyslexia and normal children using high contrast stimuli.http://www.jovr.org/article.asp?issn=2008-322X;year=2015;volume=10;issue=3;spage=274;epage=278;aulast=HeravianDyslexia; Pattern Visual Evoked Potential; Visual Impairment
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Javad Heravian
Davood Sobhani-Rad
Samaneh Lari
Mohamadjavad Khoshsima
Abbas Azimi
Hadi Ostadimoghaddam
Abbasali Yekta
Seyed Hosein Hoseini-Yazdi
spellingShingle Javad Heravian
Davood Sobhani-Rad
Samaneh Lari
Mohamadjavad Khoshsima
Abbas Azimi
Hadi Ostadimoghaddam
Abbasali Yekta
Seyed Hosein Hoseini-Yazdi
Pattern visual evoked potentials in dyslexic versus normal children
Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research
Dyslexia; Pattern Visual Evoked Potential; Visual Impairment
author_facet Javad Heravian
Davood Sobhani-Rad
Samaneh Lari
Mohamadjavad Khoshsima
Abbas Azimi
Hadi Ostadimoghaddam
Abbasali Yekta
Seyed Hosein Hoseini-Yazdi
author_sort Javad Heravian
title Pattern visual evoked potentials in dyslexic versus normal children
title_short Pattern visual evoked potentials in dyslexic versus normal children
title_full Pattern visual evoked potentials in dyslexic versus normal children
title_fullStr Pattern visual evoked potentials in dyslexic versus normal children
title_full_unstemmed Pattern visual evoked potentials in dyslexic versus normal children
title_sort pattern visual evoked potentials in dyslexic versus normal children
publisher Knowledge E
series Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research
issn 2008-322X
publishDate 2015-01-01
description Purpose: Presence of neurophysiological abnormalities in dyslexia has been a conflicting issue. This study was performed to evaluate the role of sensory visual deficits in the pathogenesis of dyslexia. Methods: Pattern visual evoked potentials (PVEP) were recorded in 72 children including 36 children with dyslexia and 36 children without dyslexia (controls) who were matched for age, sex and intelligence. Two check sizes of 15 and 60 min of arc were used with temporal frequencies of 1.5 Hz for transient and 6 Hz for steady-state methods. Results: Mean latency and amplitude values for 15 min arc and 60 min arc check sizes using steady state and transient methods showed no significant difference between the two study groups (P values: 0.139/0.481/0.356/0.062). Furthermore, no significant difference was observed between two methods of PVEPs in dyslexic and normal children using 60 min arc with high contrast (P values: 0.116, 0.402, 0.343 and 0.106). Conclusion: The sensitivity of PVEP has high validity to detect visual deficits in children with dyslexic problem. However, no significant difference was found between dyslexia and normal children using high contrast stimuli.
topic Dyslexia; Pattern Visual Evoked Potential; Visual Impairment
url http://www.jovr.org/article.asp?issn=2008-322X;year=2015;volume=10;issue=3;spage=274;epage=278;aulast=Heravian
work_keys_str_mv AT javadheravian patternvisualevokedpotentialsindyslexicversusnormalchildren
AT davoodsobhanirad patternvisualevokedpotentialsindyslexicversusnormalchildren
AT samanehlari patternvisualevokedpotentialsindyslexicversusnormalchildren
AT mohamadjavadkhoshsima patternvisualevokedpotentialsindyslexicversusnormalchildren
AT abbasazimi patternvisualevokedpotentialsindyslexicversusnormalchildren
AT hadiostadimoghaddam patternvisualevokedpotentialsindyslexicversusnormalchildren
AT abbasaliyekta patternvisualevokedpotentialsindyslexicversusnormalchildren
AT seyedhoseinhoseiniyazdi patternvisualevokedpotentialsindyslexicversusnormalchildren
_version_ 1724786030184235008