Abstract
Background
Migraine is a multifaceted chronic disease with common ocular symptoms. Habituation is the decremental response on repeated stimulations. The literature review indicates controversial results regarding habituation in migraine individuals. The present study aimed to compare the habituation response using visual evoked potential (VEP) measures among migraine and control subjects.
Methods
This was a cross-sectional study performed among migraine individuals attending the Department of Medicine and Neurology, of the age group of 18–30 years at Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry. Habituation was evaluated in the two groups, control (n = 40) and migraine (n = 40), using pattern reversal VEP. The recording was done for 15-min duration and divided into four blocks of 3.8 min each. The results were compared employing Student t-test, and p < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
Results
Our study indicates that latency N75, N145, and P100 amplitude showed significant differences between the two groups. In the right eye, on comparing the first and fourth block P100 amplitude in the migraine group, a significant increase (p < 0.001) was observed in the fourth block. Similarly, in the left eye, the control group showed a significant decrease in the fourth block (p = 0.002), whereas the migraine group showed a significant increase (p < 0.001).
Conclusions
The present study concludes that migraine individuals report deficient habituation, evaluated using pattern reversal VEP.
Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
Research funding: None declared.
Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.
Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in this study.
Ethical approval: Research involving human subjects complied with all relevant national regulations, institutional policies and is in accordance with the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration (as revised in 2013), and has been approved by the authors’ institutional review board of Human Ethics Committee of Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College.
References
[1] World Health Organization. The world health report 2001. Geneva: WHO, 2001:19–45.Search in Google Scholar
[2] Steiner TJ, Stovner LJ, Birbeck GL. Migraine: the seventh disabler. J Headache Pain 2013;14:1.10.1186/1129-2377-14-1Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[3] Steiner TJ, Stovner LJ, Vos T, Jensen R, Katsarava Z. Migraine is first cause of disability in under 50s: will health politicians now take notice? J Headache Pain 2018;19:17.10.1186/s10194-018-0846-2Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[4] Goadsby PJ, Holland PR, Martins-Oliveira M, Hoffmann J, Schankin C, Akerman S. Pathophysiology of migraine: a disorder of sensory processing. Physiol Rev 2017;97:553–622.10.1152/physrev.00034.2015Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[5] Coppola G, Pierelli F, Schoenen J. Is the cerebral cortex hyperexcitable or hyperresponsive in migraine? Cephalagia 2007;27:1427–39.10.1111/j.1468-2982.2007.01500.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
[6] Coppola G, Pierelli F, Schoenen J. Habituation and migraine. Neurobiol Learn Mem 2009;92:249–59.10.1016/j.nlm.2008.07.006Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[7] Bidot S, Biotti D. Migraine with visual aura. J Fr Ophtalmol 2016;39:554–9.10.1016/j.jfo.2016.05.002Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[8] Coppola G, Di Lorenzo C, Schoenen J, Pierelli F. Habituation and sensitization in primary headaches. J Headache Pain 2013;14:65.10.1186/1129-2377-14-65Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[9] Omland PM, Uglem M, Hagen K, Linde M, Tronvik E, Sand T. Visual evoked potentials in migraine: is the “neurophysiological hallmark” concept still valid? Clin Neurophysiol 2016;127:810–6.10.1016/j.clinph.2014.12.035Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[10] Kalita J, Uniyal R, Misra UK, Bhoi SK. Neuronal dysexcitability may be a biomarker of migraine: a visual evoked potential study. Clin EEG Neurosci 2018;49:342–50.10.1177/1550059417734106Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[11] Vijayalakshmi TN, Jayaraman RM, Bhanu, Anandan H. Evaluation of visual evoked potential in migraine individuals. Int J Sci Stud 2016;4:46–50.Search in Google Scholar
[12] Boylu E, Domaç FM, Koçer A, Unal Z, Tanridağ T, Us O. Visual evoked potential abnormalities in migraine patients. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 2010;50:303–8.Search in Google Scholar
[13] Lisicki M, Ruiz-Romagnoli E, Piedrabuena R, Giobellina R, Schoenen J, Magis D. Migraine triggers and habituation of visual evoked potentials. Cephalagia 2018;38:988–92.10.1177/0333102417720217Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[14] Lisicki M, Ruiz-Romagnoli E, D’Ostilio K, Piedrabuena R, Giobellina R, Schoenen J, et al. Familial history of migraine influences habituation of visual evoked potentials. Cephalagia 2017;37:1082–7.10.1177/0333102416673207Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[15] Ambrosini A, Kisialiou A, Coppola G, Finos L, Magis D, Pierelli F, et al. Visual and auditory cortical evoked potentials in interictal episodic migraine: an audit on 624 patients from three centers. Cephalagia 2017;37:1126–34.10.1177/0333102416665224Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[16] Ambrosini A, Iezzi E, Perrotta A, Kisialiou A, Nardella A, Berardelli A, et al. Correlation between habituation of visual-evoked potentials and magnetophosphene thresholds in migraine: a case-control study. Cephalagia 2016;36:258–64.10.1177/0333102415590241Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[17] Coppola G, Di Lorenzo C, Parisi V, Lisicki M, Serrao M, Pierelli F. Clinical neurophysiology of migraine with aura. J Headache Pain 2019;20:42.10.1186/s10194-019-0997-9Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[18] de Tommaso M, Ambrosini A, Brighina F, Coppola G, Perrotta A, Pierelli F, et al. Altered processing of sensory stimuli in patients with migraine. Nat Rev Neurol 2014;10:144–55.10.1038/nrneurol.2014.14Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[19] Huang L, Juan Dong H, Wang X, Wang Y, Xiao Z. Duration and frequency of migraines affect cognitive function: evidence from neuropsychological tests and event-related potentials. J Headache Pain 2017;18:54.10.1186/s10194-017-0758-6Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[20] Cortese F, Pierelli F, Bove I, Di Lorenzo C, Evangelista M, Perrotta A, et al. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the left temporal pole restores normal visual evoked potential habituation in interictal migraineurs. J Headache Pain 2017;18:70.10.1186/s10194-017-0778-2Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
