Aim: To compare flash visual evoked potentials (FVEP) elicited using a Ganzfeld bowl (G), Mini Ganzfeld (MG) and Flash Goggles (GG) with eyes open and closed.
Patients and method: The study group comprised 17 volunteers with mean age of 30 years; all of them were examined with the Roland Consult electrophysiological diagnostic system. Active electrodes were placed at O1 and O2. With the G and MG stimulators, the flash generated by white-light-emitting diodes (LEDs) presented standard flash of 3 cd s m-2. The GG used red LED flash of 3 cd s m-2. Stimulus frequency of 1.0 Hz, low-pass filter of 1.0 Hz and high-pass filters of 100 Hz (G); 50 Hz (MG); 30 Hz (GG) were used. P2 amplitude and latency were compared by the means of the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test.
Results: After right eye stimulation (from O1; n = 17), the mean amplitudes of P2, elicited with the G, MG and GG, were 13, 7 and 10 µV, respectively. The respective latencies were 129, 114 and 110 ms. Hence, the difference between the results obtained with these stimulators was statistically significant (p < 0.05). The mean P2 amplitudes, acquired by the means of the G, MG and GG, were 13 µV, 7 µV and 10 µV for open eyes, and 11 µV, 8 µV and 8 µV for closed eyes. The respective latencies were 129, 114 and 110 ms for eyes open, and 127, 125 and 121 ms for eyes closed. These results of the MG (latency only) and GG (latency and amplitude) stimulation differed significantly (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: The amplitudes and latencies of the FVEP P2 elicited with different stimulators are not suitable for comparison. Closing the eye during the examination had a significant effect on the components of FVEP waveform elicited with the Flash Goggle and on the latency of P2 elicited with the MG.
Keywords: Flash Goggles; Flash visual evoked potentials; Ganzfeld; Mini Ganzfeld.