Multichannel visual evoked potentials reveal interocular timing differences in amblyopia, suggesting targeted interventions may help.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to test whether binocular afferent synchrony differs within the visual critical period (CP), beyond the CP, and in amblyopia using dominance-referenced multichannel visual evoked potentials (mcVEPs), and to assess the translational value of interocular timing asymmetries. Methods: We enrolled 117 participants: 33 healthy children and 28 children with amblyopia (all within the CP) and 56 healthy adults (post-CP). Pattern-reversal (PR-VEP) and flash VEP (F-VEP) responses were recorded at O1/Oz/O2 referenced to Fz. Lateral channels were relabeled relative to each participant's dominant eye (dominance-referenced analysis). Primary outcomes were interocular P100 latency difference (indexing synchrony) and N75-P100 amplitude (indexing response balance). Results: In healthy children, PR-VEPs showed no significant interocular P100 latency differences at either lateral electrode and bilaterally symmetric amplitudes, consistent with preserved synchrony during the CP. Healthy adults exhibited a contralateral latency advantage (shorter P100 for the eye contralateral to the recording electrode) and a dominant-eye amplitude bias, indicating post-CP asynchrony and ocular-dominance asymmetry. In amblyopic children, both PR-VEPs and F-VEPs demonstrated prolonged P100/P2 latency (≈10-12 ms delay) and reduced N75-P100/N2-P2 amplitudes in the amblyopic (non-dominant) eye across hemispheres, reflecting marked disruption of binocular timing and response symmetry. Conclusions: Interocular latency asynchrony derived from mcVEPs offers a noninvasive, objective readout of binocular afferent timing that may assist in amblyopia stratification and inform timing-targeted, individualized interventions. Longitudinal and interventional studies are warranted to establish causal links between synchrony and cortical plasticity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: