4.4 Article

Effect of binasal occlusion (BNO) and base-in prisms on the visual-evoked potential (VEP) in mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI)

Journal

BRAIN INJURY
Volume 28, Issue 12, Pages 1568-1580

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/02699052.2014.939718

Keywords

Base-in prism; binasal occlusion (BNO); mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI); objective mTBI biomarker; visual-evoked potential amplitude; visual-evoked potential latency; visual motion sensitivity (VMS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To assess quantitatively the effect and relative contribution of binasal occlusion (BNO) and base-in prisms (BI) on visually-evoked potential (VEP) responsivity in persons with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and the symptom of visual motion sensitivity (VMS), as well as in visually-normal (VN) individuals. Research design and methods: Subjects were comprised of 20 VN adults and 15 adults with mTBI and VMS. There were four test conditions: (1) conventional pattern VEP, which served as the baseline comparison condition; (2) VEP with BNO alone; (3) VEP with 2 pd BI prisms before each eye; and (4) VEP with the above BNO and BI prism combination. Results: In mTBI, the mean VEP amplitude increased significantly in nearly all subjects (similar to 90%) with BNO alone. In contrast, in VN, it decreased significantly with BNO alone in all subjects (100%), as compared to the other test conditions. These objective findings were consistent with improvements in visual impressions and sensorimotor tasks in the group with mTBI. Latency remained within normal limits under all test conditions in both groups. Conclusions: Only the BNO condition demonstrated significant, but opposite and consistent, directional effects on the VEP amplitude in both groups. The BNO-VEP test condition may be used clinically for the objectively-based, differential diagnosis of persons suspected of having mTBI and VMS from the VNs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available