Several studies have demonstrated that visual evoked potentials can be influenced by sport events. To the best of our knowledge, there are no specific parameters for the most appropriate stimulation for evaluating the functional state of athletes.OBJECTIVE:
To investigate the best stimulation in visual evoked potential to apply to functional evaluation of athletes.DESIGN, TIME AND SETTING:
Ninety-five, healthy students from the Shandong Normal University took part in an observational, contrast study.PARTICIPANTS:
All active participants were male. Sixty-five students majored in physical education, and had participated in exercise for the duration of (4.26 ± 3.08) years. An additional 30 students majored in other subjects.METHODS:
The neural electricity tester, NDI–200, was adapted to examine and record visual evoked potential with varying probes using bipolar electrodes attached to the head of all the participants in a dark room. The visual evoked potential values were analyzed transversally. A chessboard pattern reversal method was applied with the following parameters: 2 Hz stimulation frequency, brightness of 90 cdp, 80% contrast, 1–100 Hz bandpass filters, and 10 μ V sensitivity; 100 responses were averaged.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
latency, peak latencies, and inter-peak latencies were measured in N75, P100, N145 with varying probe stimulations.RESULTS:
(1) Comparisons between the little check, middle check, and big check stimulation, demonstrated that the common tendencies in visual evoked potential indexes of the two groups of N75 latency were successively shorter and N145 were longer. P100-N145 peak latency was decreased and each inter-peak latency was longer. (2) Changes of N75, P100, and N145 with different check stimulations in the physical education student group: after compared with the middle check stimulation, N75 latency was significantly longer (P < 0.01), and N75-P100 inter-peak latency (P < 0.05) and N75-N145 inter-peak latency were both shorter (P < 0.05). N75-P100 inter-peak latency was shorter (P < 0.01) in the little check stimulation. When compared with the big check stimulation, N75 latency was significantly longer (P < 0.01) and N145 was shorter (P < 0.01). Compared with the big check stimulation, N145 latency was significantly shorter (P < 0.05). (3) Changes of N75, P100, and N145 with different check stimulations in the normal students: when compared with the big check stimulation, N75 latency was significantly longer (P < 0.05) and N145 latency was shorter (P < 0.05). Each inter-peak latency was shorter (P < 0.05) in the little check stimulation. When comparing the middle check stimulation, N75-N145 inter-peak latency was shorter (P < 0.05).CONCLUSION:
Large visual evoked potential differences were observed between students majoring in physical education and other subjects when medium probe stimulation was applied. These results suggest that the use of medium probe stimulation (25 mm×25 mm) should be adopted when evaluating the functional state of athletes.