• Users Online: 555
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home Current issue Ahead of print Search About us Abstracting and Indexing Editorial board Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 274-278

Pattern visual evoked potentials in dyslexic versus normal children


1 Refractive Errors Research Center; Department of Optometry, School of Paramedical Sciences, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
2 Refractive Errors Research Center; Department of Speech Therapy, School of Paramedical Sciences, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
3 Department of Optometry, School of Paramedical Sciences, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
4 Contact Lens and Visual Optics Laboratory, School of Optometry and Vision Science, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

Correspondence Address:
Davood Sobhani-Rad
Department of Speech Therapy, School of Paramedical Sciences, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad 91779
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2008-322X.170361

Rights and Permissions

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.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1182    
    Printed12    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded142    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal