ISCEV standard for clinical visual evoked potentials: (2016 update)
Abstract
Visual evoked potentials (VEPs) can provide important diagnostic information regarding the functional integrity of the visual system. This document updates the ISCEV standard for clinical VEP testing and supersedes the 2009 standard. The main changes in this revision are the acknowledgment that pattern stimuli can be produced using a variety of technologies with an emphasis on the need for manufacturers to ensure that there is no luminance change during pattern reversal or pattern onset/offset. The document is also edited to bring the VEP standard into closer harmony with other ISCEV standards. The ISCEV standard VEP is based on a subset of stimulus and recording conditions that provide core clinical information and can be performed by most clinical electrophysiology laboratories throughout the world. These are: (1) Pattern-reversal VEPs elicited by checkerboard stimuli with large 1 degree (°) and small 0.25° checks. (2) Pattern onset/offset VEPs elicited by checkerboard stimuli with large 1° and small 0.25° checks. (3) Flash VEPs elicited by a flash (brief luminance increment) which subtends a visual field of at least 20°. The ISCEV standard VEP protocols are defined for a single recording channel with a midline occipital active electrode. These protocols are intended for assessment of the eye and/or optic nerves anterior to the optic chiasm. Extended, multi-channel protocols are required to evaluate postchiasmal lesions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Both pre- and retro-chiasmal lesions can contribute to bilateral VEP abnormalities.
“Caution should be exercised when interpreting bilateral VEP delays, particularly when associated with abnormal morphology, since both pre- and retro- chiasmal lesions can contribute to bilateral VEP abnormalities. 46”
From The use of optical coherence tomography and visual evoked potentials in the 2024 McDonald diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis (2025) · cites this paper as [46]
Following well-established guidelines such as the ISCEV and IFCN standards likely improves VEP reliability and comparability across clinical laboratories.
“We recommend following well-established guidelines to ensure the use of appropriate parameters for performing VEPs in the clinic, such as the widely used standards from the International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision and the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, which have likely contributed to improve VEP reliability and comparability across clinical laborator”
From The use of optical coherence tomography and visual evoked potentials in the 2024 McDonald diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis (2025) · cites this paper as [46]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Vidal-Jordana, A., Rovira, A., Calderon, W., Arrambide, G., Castilló, J., Moncho, D., Rahnama, K., Collorone, S., Toosy, A. T., Ciccarelli, O., et al. (2024) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000207805 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Saidha, S., Green, A. J., Leocani, L., Vidal-Jordana, A., Kenney, R. C., Bsteh, G., Outteryck, O., Thompson, A., Montalban, X., Coetzee, T., et al. (2025) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(25)00275-3 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Oertel, F. C., Krämer, J., Motamedi, S., Keihani, A., Zimmermann, H. G., Dimitriou, N. G., Condor-Montes, S., Bereuter, C., Cordano, C., Abdelhak, A., et al. (2023) · Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation · doi:10.1212/nxi.0000000000200092 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Schloemer, N., Lenz, M., Tegenthoff, M., Dinse, H. R., & Höffken, O. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-79389-6 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Ingvaldsen, S. H., Moljord, K., Grøtting, A., Omland, P. M., Dammann, O., Austeng, D., & Morken, T. S. (2023) · BMC Ophthalmology · doi:10.1186/s12886-023-03055-4 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Marcar, V. L., Battegay, E., Schmidt, D., & Cheetham, M. (2022) · Vision Research · doi:10.1016/j.visres.2021.107994 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Konen, F. F., Mahmoudi, N., Albers, L. M., Arrambide, G., Streichert, A. L., Haar, M., Soldatov, A., Bucak, E., Jendretzky, K. F., Nay, S., et al. (2026) · eClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2026.104098
- Authors
- International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision, Odom, J. V., Bach, M., Brigell, M., Holder, G. E., McCulloch, D. L., Mizota, A., & Tormene, A. P.
- Affiliations
- West Virginia University (US)
- University of Freiburg (DE)
- Moorfields Eye Hospital (GB)
- University of Waterloo (CA)
- Teikyo University Hospital (JP)
- University of Padua (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Odom, J. Vernon
- ORCID
- Venue
- Documenta Ophthalmologica
- Published
- 2016-07-21
- Volume
- 133
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-9
- ISSN
- 0012-4486 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-2622
- OpenAlex
- W2917747054
- Cited by
- 699
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 54 · 2025: 85 · 2024: 82 · 2023: 80 · 2022: 84 · 2021: 92 · 2020: 80 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 29.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Documenta Ophthalmologica (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Intraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic Effects
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Glaucoma and retinal disorders
- Keywords
- visual evoked potentials, pattern visual evoked potential, checkerboard stimuli, flash VEP, visual pathway integrity, recording protocols
- MeSH terms
- Electrophysiology, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Humans, Optic Nerve, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Societies, Medical, Vision, Ocular, Visual Cortex, Visual Fields
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
