[16, 52, 53] Our data show a slower restitution of CBFV after stimulus offset in patients compared with controls. This finding might be explained by an excess metabolic demand resulting from the increased activation of the visual areas – complementing the results of our fMRI study. While fMRI detected differential regional

activation patterns with a high spatial resolution, fTCD results depend on a higher oxygen demand in large vascular territories. Metabolically active localized regions at the border of vascular territories – as V5 – might not be adequately depicted. Furthermore, a synchronous recording of bilateral middle and posterior cerebral arteries remains technically challenging. Improvement of the regional resolution of fTCD to assess blood flow changes in distal arterial branches might also Alvelestat help to overcome some of the limitations when comparing the results of these techniques. Concerning fMRI, future investigations of visual motion perception might also include seed-based resting-state fMRI examinations to characterize functionally connected

brain networks. In conclusion, our fMRI findings Alectinib purchase demonstrate that visual areas activated by motion perception (V5 and V3) are hyperresponsive in MA in the interictal state contributing to the explanation of common interictal motion-processing deficits observed in migraine. Complementary results of fTCD indicate a slower restitution of the hemodynamic response in MA patients. (a)  Conception and Design (a) 

Drafting the Manuscript (a)  Final Approval of the Completed Manuscript “
“Background.— Pattern-induced visual discomfort and photophobia are frequently observed symptoms in migraineurs. The presumed pathophysiologic mechanisms of pattern glare and photophobia seem to overlap anatomically within the central nervous system. Objective.— To assess the relationship between interictal pattern-induced visual discomfort and ictal photophobia in episodic migraineurs. Methods.— We compared pattern-induced visual discomfort among 3 groups: controls, migraineurs without ictal photophobia (MwoP), and migraineurs with ictal photophobia (MwP). Photophobia was assessed with a validated photophobia questionnaire. Visual discomfort tests were see more performed using 3 striped patterns with different spatial frequencies. After viewing the patterns for 10 seconds, subjects were asked to report the severity of visual discomfort using 4 scales (none, mild, moderate, and severe) and using a 0-10 visual analog scale (VAS). We compared the proportion of subjects choosing moderate-to-severe discomfort and the median values of VAS scores for each pattern among the 3 groups. Results.— We enrolled 35 controls, 18 MwoP, and 44 MwP, and there were no significant differences in clinical features among the 3 groups. MwP reported a significantly higher proportion of moderate-to-severe discomfort and higher median VAS scores than the controls and MwoP did.