4.5 Review

Photic- and pattern-induced seizures: A review for the Epilepsy Foundation of America working group

期刊

EPILEPSIA
卷 46, 期 9, 页码 1426-1441

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2005.31405.x

关键词

seizures; epilepsy; photosensitivity; reflex seizures; review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: This report summarizes background material presented to a consensus conference on visually provoked seizures, convened by the Epilepsy Foundation of America. Methods: A comprehensive review of literature was performed. Results: Photosensitivity, an abnormal EEG response to light or pattern stimulation, occurs in similar to 0.3-3% of the population. The estimated prevalence of seizures from light stimuli is similar to 1 per 10,000, or 1 per 4,000 individuals age 5-24 years. People with epilepsy have a 2-14% chance of having seizures precipitated by light or pattern. In the Pokemon cartoon incident in Japan, 685 children visited a hospital in reaction to red-blue flashes on broadcast television (TV). Only 24% who had a seizure during the cartoon had previously experienced a seizure. Photic or pattern stimulation can provoke seizures in predisposed individuals, but such stimulation is not known to increase the chance of subsequent epilepsy. Intensities of 0.2-1.5 million candlepower are in the range to trigger seizures. Frequencies of 15-25 Hz are most provocative, but the range is 1-65 Hz. Light-dark borders can induce pattern-sensitive seizures, and red color also is a factor. Seizures can be provoked by certain TV shows, movie screen images, video games, natural stimuli (e.g, sun on water), public displays, and many other sources. Conclusions: Recommendations on reducing risk of seizures have been developed by agencies in the United Kingdom, Japan, and the International Telecommunications Union, affiliated with the United Nations. The Epilepsy Foundation of America has developed a consensus of medical experts and scientists on this subject, reported in an accompanying work.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据