PURPOSE: To find out how the different cone types contribute to the electroretinogram (ERG) by quantifying the contribution of the signal pathways originating in the long (L-) and the middle (M-) wavelength-sensitive cones to the total ERG response amplitude and phase. METHODS: ERG response amplitudes and phases were measured to cone-isolating stimuli and to different combinations of L- and M-cone modulation. Conditions were chosen to exclude any contribution of the short wavelength-sensitive (S-) cones. The sensitivity of the ERG to the L and the M cones was defined as the cone contrast gain. RESULTS: In the present paper, a model is provided that describes the ERG contrast gains and ERG thresholds in dichromats and color normal trichromats. For the X-chromosome-linked dichromats, the contrast gains of only one cone type (either the L or the M cones) sufficed to describe the ERG thresholds for all stimulus conditions. Data suggest that the M-cone contrast gains of protanopes are larger than the L-cone contrast gains of deuteranopes. The response thresholds of the trichromats are modeled by assuming a vector summation of signals originating in the L and the M cones. Their L- and M-cone contrast gains are close to a linear interpolation of the data obtained from the dichromats. Nearly all trichromats had larger L- than M-cone contrast gains. Data from a large population of trichromats were examined to study the individual variations in cone weightings and in the phases of the cone pathway responses. CONCLUSIONS: The data strongly suggest that the missing cone type in dichromats is replaced by the remaining cone type. The mean L-cone to M-cone weighting ratio in trichromats was found to be approximately 4:1. But there is a substantial interindividual variability between trichromats. The response phases of the L- and the M-cone pathways can be reliably quantified using the response phases to the cone-isolating stimuli or using a vector addition of L- and M-cone signals.
PURPOSE: To find out how the different cone types contribute to the electroretinogram (ERG) by quantifying the contribution of the signal pathways originating in the long (L-) and the middle (M-) wavelength-sensitive cones to the total ERG response amplitude and phase. METHODS: ERG response amplitudes and phases were measured to cone-isolating stimuli and to different combinations of L- and M-cone modulation. Conditions were chosen to exclude any contribution of the short wavelength-sensitive (S-) cones. The sensitivity of the ERG to the L and the M cones was defined as the cone contrast gain. RESULTS: In the present paper, a model is provided that describes the ERG contrast gains and ERG thresholds in dichromats and color normal trichromats. For the X-chromosome-linked dichromats, the contrast gains of only one cone type (either the L or the M cones) sufficed to describe the ERG thresholds for all stimulus conditions. Data suggest that the M-cone contrast gains of protanopes are larger than the L-cone contrast gains of deuteranopes. The response thresholds of the trichromats are modeled by assuming a vector summation of signals originating in the L and the M cones. Their L- and M-cone contrast gains are close to a linear interpolation of the data obtained from the dichromats. Nearly all trichromats had larger L- than M-cone contrast gains. Data from a large population of trichromats were examined to study the individual variations in cone weightings and in the phases of the cone pathway responses. CONCLUSIONS: The data strongly suggest that the missing cone type in dichromats is replaced by the remaining cone type. The mean L-cone to M-cone weighting ratio in trichromats was found to be approximately 4:1. But there is a substantial interindividual variability between trichromats. The response phases of the L- and the M-cone pathways can be reliably quantified using the response phases to the cone-isolating stimuli or using a vector addition of L- and M-cone signals.
Authors: A Hanazawa; A Mikami; P Sulistyo Angelika; O Takenaka; S Goto; A Onishi; S Koike; T Yamamori; K Kato; A Kondo; B Suryobroto; A Farajallah; H Komatsu Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2001-06-26 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Herbert Jägle; Bettina Sadowski; Jan Kremers; Hendrik P N Scholl; Beate Leo-Kottler; Lindsay T Sharpe Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: Herbert Jägle; Emanuela de Luca; Ludwig Serey; Michael Bach; Lindsay T Sharpe Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2005-08-23 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Hendrik P N Scholl; Jan Kremers; Dorothea Besch; Eberhart Zrenner; Herbert Jägle Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2005-08-05 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Melissa Wagner-Schuman; Jay Neitz; Jungtae Rha; David R Williams; Maureen Neitz; Joseph Carroll Journal: Vision Res Date: 2010-09-17 Impact factor: 1.886
Authors: Joseph Carroll; Maureen Neitz; Heidi Hofer; Jay Neitz; David R Williams Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2004-05-17 Impact factor: 11.205