Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:52:54.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rod- and cone-isolated flicker electroretinograms and their response summation characteristics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2015

J. JASON MCANANY ,
JASON C. PARK  and
DINGCAI CAO
J. JASON MCANANY*
Affiliation:
Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60612 Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60612 Department of Bioengineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607
JASON C. PARK
Affiliation:
Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60612
DINGCAI CAO
Affiliation:
Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60612
*
*Address correspondence to: J. Jason McAnany, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1855 W. Taylor St., Chicago, IL 60612. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study defined the amplitude and phase characteristics of rod- and cone-isolated flicker electroretinograms (ERGs) and determined how these responses summate to generate the nonreceptor-specific ERG. Full-field ERGs were obtained from six normally sighted subjects (age 26 to 44 years) using a four-primary LED-based photostimulator and standard recording techniques. The four primaries were either modulated sinusoidally in phase to achieve simultaneous rod and cone activation (ERGR+C; nonreceptor-specific) or in different phases to achieve rod-isolated (ERGR) and cone-isolated (ERGC) responses by means of triple silent substitution. ERGs were measured at two mean luminance levels (2.4 and 24 cd/m2), two contrasts (20 and 40%), and four temporal frequencies (2–15 Hz). Fundamental amplitude and phase for each condition were derived by Fourier analysis. Response amplitude and phase depended on the stimulus conditions (frequency, mean luminance, and contrast), however, for all conditions: 1) response phase decreased monotonically as stimulus frequency increased; 2) response amplitude tended to decrease monotonically as stimulus frequency increased, with the exception of the 24 cd/m2, 40% contrast ERGR+C that was sharply V-shaped; 3) ERGR phase was delayed (32 to 210 deg) relative to the ERGC phase; 4) ERGR amplitude was typically equal to or lower than the ERGC amplitude, with the exception of the 2.4 cd/m2, 40% contrast condition; and 5) the pattern of ERGR+C responses could be accounted for by a vector summation model of the rod and cone pathway signals. The results show that the ERGR+C amplitude and phase can be predicted from ERGR and ERGC amplitude and phase. For conditions that elicit ERGR and ERGC responses that have approximately equal amplitude and opposite phase, there is strong destructive interference between the rod and cone responses that attenuates the ERGR+C. Conditions that elicit equal amplitude and opposite phase rod and cone responses may be particularly useful for evaluating rod–cone interactions.

Keywords

Electroretinogram (ERG)RodConeFlicker
Type
Brief Communication
Information
Visual Neuroscience , Volume 32 , 2015 , E018
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexander, K.R. & Fishman, G.A. (1984). Rod-cone interaction in flicker perimetry. The British Journal of Ophthalmology 68, 303–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bijveld, M.M., Kappers, A.M., Riemslag, F.C., Hoeben, F.P., Vrijling, A.C. & van Genderen, M.M. (2011a). An extended 15 Hz ERG protocol (1): The contributions of primary and secondary rod pathways and the cone pathway. Documenta Ophthalmologica 123, 149–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bijveld, M.M., Riemslag, F.C., Kappers, A.M., Hoeben, F.P. & van Genderen, M.M. (2011b). An extended 15 Hz ERG protocol (2): Data of normal subjects and patients with achromatopsia, CSNB1, and CSNB2. Documenta Ophthalmologica 123, 161–172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cao, D., Lee, B.B. & Sun, H. (2010). Combination of rod and cone inputs in parasol ganglion cells of the magnocellular pathway. Journal of Vision 10, 4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cao, D., Pokorny, J. & Grassi, M.A. (2011). Isolated mesopic rod and cone electroretinograms realized with a four-primary method. Documenta Ophthalmologica 123, 29–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cao, D., Zele, A.J. & Pokorny, J. (2006). Dark-adapted rod suppression of cone flicker detection: Evaluation of receptoral and postreceptoral interactions. Visual Neuroscience 23, 531–537.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coletta, N.J. & Adams, A.J. (1984). Rod-cone interaction in flicker detection. Vision Research 24, 1333–1340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Estevez, O. & Spekreijse, H. (1982). The “silent substitution” method in visual research. Vision Research 22, 681–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kremers, J. & Pangeni, G. (2012). Electroretinographic responses to photoreceptor specific sine wave modulation. Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, Image Science, and Vision 29, A306–A313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kremers, J. & Scholl, H.P. (2001). Rod-/L-cone and rod-/M-cone interactions in electroretinograms at different temporal frequencies. Visual Neuroscience 18, 339–351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lange, G., Denny, N. & Frumkes, T.E. (1997). Suppressive rod-cone interactions: Evidence for separate retinal (temporal) and extraretinal (spatial) mechanisms in achromatic vision. Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, Image Science, and Vision 14, 2487–2498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, B.B., Smith, V.C., Pokorny, J. & Kremers, J. (1997). Rod inputs to macaque ganglion cells. Vision Research 37, 2813–2828.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacLeod, D.I. (1972). Rods cancel cones in flicker. Nature 235, 173–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McAnany, J.J. & Nolan, P.R. (2014). Changes in the harmonic components of the flicker electroretinogram during light adaptation. Documenta Ophthalmologica 129, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCulloch, D.L., Marmor, M.F., Brigell, M.G., Hamilton, R., Holder, G.E., Tzekov, R. & Bach, M. (2015). ISCEV Standard for full-field clinical electroretinography (2015 update). Documenta Ophthalmologica 130, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meigen, T. & Bach, M. (1999). On the statistical significance of electrophysiological steady-state responses. Documenta Ophthalmologica 98, 207–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nagy, B.V., Barboni, M.T., Martins, C.M., da Costa, M.F., Kremers, J. & Ventura, D.F. (2014). Human flicker electroretinography using different temporal modulations at mesopic and photopic luminance levels. Documenta Ophthalmologica 129, 129–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, J.C., Cao, D., Collison, F.T., Fishman, G.A. & McAnany, J.J. (2015). Rod and cone contributions to the dark-adapted 15-Hz flicker electroretinogram. Documenta Ophthalmologica 130, 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, A.G., Pokorny, J. & Smith, V.C. (1996). Cone-rod receptor spaces with illustrations that use CRT phosphor and light-emitting-diode spectra. Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, Image Science, and Vision 13, 2319–2328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van den Berg, T.J. & Spekreijse, H. (1977). Interaction between rod and cone signals studied with temporal sine wave stimulation. Journal of the Optical Society of America 67, 1210–1217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiss, S., Kremers, J. & Maurer, J. (1998). Interaction between rod and cone signals in responses of lateral geniculate neurons in dichromatic marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Visual Neuroscience 15, 931–943.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zele, A.J. & Cao, D. (2014). Vision under mesopic and scotopic illumination. Frontiers in Psychology 5, 1594.Google ScholarPubMed