지표학적 시각유발전위 P100검사시 잠복기를 결정하는 Global Field Power Measurement와 Classical Method의 비교

• 영문명: Global Field Power Measurement Versus Classical Method in Determination of Latency of Topographic YEP P100
• 발행기관: 대한신경정신의학회
• 저자명: 한상익 이정태
• 간행물 정보: 『신경정신의학』제34권 제6호, 1627~1633쪽, 전체 7쪽
• 주제분류: 의약학 > 정신과학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 1995.11.30

영문 초록

Objects ： The authors attempt to compare Global Field Power Measurement(GFPM) versus classic method(CM) in the determination of the latency of topographic visual evoked potential P I00 in normal controls and schizophrenics. Methods ： The subjects, 40 normal controls and 35 schizophrenics, were examined for the comparison of the latency and the difference of amplitude between maximal point and minimal point of topographic VEP P I00 component by Global Field Power Measurement(GFPM) and Classic Method(CM). Results ： In normal controls, the results of GFPM did not differ from those of CM in the determination of the latency and difference of VEP P100. In schizophrenics, however, the latency and difference by GFP, 103.06 土 4.60(msec) and 10.24 土 4.46(pV)，were significantly different from those by CM, 104.00 土 4.67(msec) and 10.04 土 4.35(]iV)，respectively. Conclusion ： These results suggest that GFPM was superior to CM in determination of the latency and difference of VEP P I00 component, at least, in schizophrenics.

목차

서 론

대상 및 방법

결 과

고 찰

요 약

참고문헌

키워드

Global field power measurement(GFPM) Classic method(CM) Visual evoked potential P100(VEP PI00) Schizophrenia