 |
| Volume 3, Number 2, Article 3, Pages 146-160 |
doi:10.1167/3.2.3 |
http://journalofvision.org/3/2/3/ |
ISSN 1534-7362 |
Cone selective adaptation influences L- and M-cone driven signals in electroretinography and psychophysics
Jan Kremers |
Department of Experimental Ophthalmology,
University of Tübingen Eye Hospital, Tübingen, Germany
|
|
Maciej W. Stepien |
Department of Experimental Ophthalmology,
University of Tübingen Eye Hospital, Tübingen, Germany
|
|
Hendrik P. N. Scholl |
Department of Experimental Ophthalmology,
University of Tübingen Eye Hospital, Tübingen, Germany |
|
Cézar Saito |
Departamento de Fisiologia, Universidade Federal do Pará, Centro de Ciências Biológicas, Belém, Brazil |
|
Abstract
To assess the influence of selective adaptation of long (L) and middle (M) wavelength sensitive cones with electroretinography (ERG) and psychophysics, a novel adaptation procedure was developed, which comprises a selective and quantifiable change in the state of adaptation in the different cone types. One adaptation condition was used as a reference. In four additional conditions, the M-cones or the L-cones were selectively adapted, so that they absorbed either more or less photons. At each of these five states of adaptation, the ERG response amplitudes to 30Hz L- and to M-cone selective stimuli were measured. Furthermore, the psychophysical sensitivities to L- and M-cone selective stimuli were measured at different temporal frequencies. In subjects with normal color vision, adaptation can have a strong influence on the L- and M-cone driven response amplitudes in the ERG and on both the L- and the M-cone sensitivities in the psychophysical luminance channel. As a result, the L- to M-cone ERG and psychophysical ratios can change dramatically at the different states of adaptation. The cone sensitivity thresholds and the L- to M-cone sensitivity ratio in the psychophysical chromatic channel are about unity at all states of adaptation, suggesting the presence of a compensatory mechanism. In dichromats, the responses and sensitivities to stimulation of the absent cone type were generally small at all states of adaptation. But, with reddish backgrounds residual ERG responses and residual psychophysical sensitivities were observed, indicating the presence of either a robust rod driven signal or an additional adaptation mechanisms that are not cone driven and that have not been described before.
 |
|
History
Received July 17, 2002; published March 25, 2003
Citation
Kremers, J., Stepien, M. W., Scholl, H. P. N., & Saito, C. (2003). Cone selective adaptation influences L- and M-cone driven signals in electroretinography and psychophysics.
Journal of Vision, 3(2):3, 146-160,
http://journalofvision.org/3/2/3/,
doi:10.1167/3.2.3.
Keywords
cone specific ERG, selective adaptation, luminance channel, chromatic channel
for related articles by these authors
for papers that cite this paper |
The signals in the various postreceptoral pathways of
the visual system originate in the photoreceptors. The gains and distributions
of the photoreceptor driven signals depend on the postreceptoral pathway the
signals enter ( Brainard, Calderone, Nugent,
& Jacobs, 1999; Kremers, Usui,
Scholl, & Sharpe, 1999; Yeh, Lee, &
Kremers, 1995). Furthermore, there is strong evidence that the L- and M-cone
driven signals in the electroretinogram (ERG) and their ratio can vary
considerably among individual trichromatic subjects ( Brainard et al. 1999; Carroll, McMahon, Neitz, & Neitz, 2000;
Kremers et al.1999) The L- to M-cone
weighting ratio in the ERG is correlated with the sensitivity ratio to L- and
M-cone isolating stimuli in the psychophysical luminance channel. These ratios
are probably related to the number of L- and M-cones that are stimulated ( Brainard et al., 2000; Kremers et al., 2000). However, when the
psychophysical sensitivities are mediated by the chromatic channel, the
L-/M-cone sensitivity ratio is around unity for all subjects with normal color
vision ( Hood et al., 2002; Krauskopf, 2000; Kremers et al., 2000).
The close correspondence between the ERG and the
luminance channel is reflected in the resemblance between the spectral
sensitivities of the ERG and the psychophysical spectral luminosity function,
V λ ( Jacobs, & Deegan ,
1997; Jacobs, Deegan, & Moran,
1996; Jacobs, Neitz, & Krogh,
1996). But the human V λ and other luminance related spectral
sensitivities can be changed by the state of adaptation ( Eisner & Macleod, 1981; Swanson, 1993). Further, the spectral
sensitivity of the ERG can be altered in a very similar manner by using
different chromatic adaptations
(Padmos & van Norren,
1971). But,
it is not known how well the changes in spectral sensitivities of ERG and of the
psychophysical luminance channel correlate with each other. A change in spectral
sensitivity implies that the contributing cone signals and therefore the L- to
M-cone weighting ratio change. Until now, no quantitative description of the
changes in L-/M-cone ratio by adaptation is available. Furthermore, it is not
known how the adaptation in one cone type affects the responses of the same cone
type and of cone types that are not adapted.
We found that the L- to M-cone weighting ratio in the
chromatic channel is about unity for all trichromatic observers irrespective of
the ratios in the ERGs or the luminance channel, indicating the presence of a
compensatory mechanism (Kremers et al., 2000).
However, it is not clear how the cone driven sensitivities in the chromatic
channel are influenced by adaptation.
It is the purpose of the present paper to address the
above mentioned questions by studying the influence of selective adaptation in
the L- or the M-cone on the L- and the M-cone driven signals in the ERG and the
psychophysical luminance and chromatic channels of color normals. This paradigm
enables us not only to study the influence of adaptation on the L- to M-cone
weighting ratios but also the effect of cone selective adaptation on the
responses driven by the adapted and the non-adapted cones. Recently, it was
found that adaptation in the L- or the M-cones influences only the responses of
horizontal cells to modulation in the adapted cone, but not in the non-adapted
cone (Lee, Dacey, Smith & Pokorny, 1999).
But, this has not been studied in other postreceptoral mechanism with
non-invasive methods.
Finally, we were interested in the influence of cone
selective adaptation on the ERG responses and psychophysical sensitivities in
color vision deficient subjects: protanopes, deuteranopes and S-cone
monochromats. The smaller number of photoreceptor types in these observers
allows the identification of some adaptation mechanisms, that may also be
present in trichromats.
This study was conducted in accordance with the tenets
of the declaration of Helsinki and with the approval of the institutional
ethical committee in human experimentation.
Eight trichromats (five males and three females), five
male dichromats (three deuteranopes and two protanopes) and one S-cone
monochromat participated in ERG recordings and psychophysical measurements. The
classification of trichromacy or dichromacy of the subjects was based upon
Rayleigh matches in the Nagel type I anomaloscope. Blood samples of the
dichromats and the S-cone monochromat were analyzed genetically (genetic data
were kindly provided by Wolfgang Jagla and Christiane Wolf of the University of
Tübingen Eye Hospital). All deuteranopes and one protanope had only one
gene coding for a normal L- or M-cone respectively. The second protanope had
multiple genes, that all coded for identical and normal M-cone photopigments. A
genetic analysis was also performed on blood samples of three male trichromats
and confirmed the presence of trichromacy. Informed consent was obtained from
all subjects after explanation of the purpose of the study.
L- and M-Cone Selective Stimuli
The methods on the cone isolating stimuli, the ERG
recording procedure and the psychophysical measurements are described in detail
elsewhere ( Kremers et al., 2000; Kremers et al. 1999; Usui, Kremers, Sharpe, & Zrenner, 1998a;
Usui, Kremers, Sharpe, & Zrenner,
1998b). Briefly, the stimuli were presented on a computer-controlled color
monitor (BARCO CCID 121) driven at 100 Hz by a VSG 2/3 graphics card (Cambridge
Research System). The spectral characteristics of the monitor phosphors were
measured with a spectroradiometer (CAS 140, Instrument Systems). The luminance
output was calibrated using the internal luminance measuring device of the
monitor. The VSG software automatically performed the gamma correction.
To stimulate and to adapt the photoreceptors, the
outputs of the red, green and blue phosphors were changed. The appropriate
calculations were based on the emission spectra of the monitor phosphors and the
psychophysical cone fundamentals (Stockman, MacLeod & Johnson, 1993).
The sensitivities of all cone types to all phosphors were calculated by
multiplying the emission spectra with the cone fundamentals and by integrating
over the wavelength. The sensitivities and mean luminances of each phosphor ( Table 1) were used to calculate the modulation
contrast in each phosphor, required to obtain the appropriate photoreceptor (rod
or cone) contrast. Either the L- or the M-cones were selectively stimulated
without a stimulation in the remaining two cone types. Thus, the short
wavelength sensitive (S-) cones were not stimulated (S-cone contrast was 0%) in
any of the measurements. By controlling the contrasts in each cone type it is
not possible to additionally control the rod contrast. But the rod contrast
could be calculated for each
stimulus. Table
1. Monitor Outputs and Receptor Excitations.
|
Adaptation conditions
|
|
Baseline
|
Lmax
|
Lmin
|
Mmax
|
Mmin
|
|
Monitor phosphors luminance (Cd/m²)
|
Red gun
|
20
|
28.1
|
11.9
|
13.6
|
26.4
|
|
Green gun
|
40
|
36.1
|
43.9
|
49.1
|
30.9
|
|
Blue gun
|
6
|
6
|
6
|
5.9
|
6.1
|
|
Total
|
66
|
70.2
|
61.8
|
68.6
|
63.4
|
|
Total retinal illuminance(photopic td)
|
ERG
|
3318
|
3529
|
3106
|
3448
|
3187
|
|
Psychophysics
|
467
|
496
|
437
|
485
|
448
|
|
CIE (1964) large field coordinates
|
X
|
0.32
|
0.35
|
0.29
|
0.30
|
0.35
|
|
Y
|
0.31
|
0.305
|
0.31
|
0.325
|
0.29
|
|
Photoreceptor illuminance inERG (cone or rod td)
|
L-cones
|
3648
|
4012
|
3283
|
3649
|
3647
|
|
M-cones
|
2964
|
2964
|
2964
|
3261
|
2667
|
|
S-cones
|
2197
|
2203
|
2190
|
2193
|
2201
|
|
Rods
|
3246
|
3153
|
3340
|
3555
|
2937
|
The outputs of the red, green and blue phosphors of
the monitor, the total output of the monitor, total retinal illuminance during
electroretinography and the psychophysical experiments, the large field
(10°) CIE coordinates and the excitations in the four photoreceptor types
during the ERG measurements at all adaptation conditions. The total excitations
in the photoreceptors during the psychophysical measurements were approximately
7 times smaller than those in the ERG recordings.
L- and M-Cone Selective Adaptation
ERG recordings and psychophysical measurements were
performed at five different states of adaptation: one reference or baseline
state of adaptation. In four additional states of adaptation, the mean
excitation in only one cone type was altered by a fixed value relative to the
baseline condition. The excitations in the two other cone types were not
altered. The mean excitation in the rods could not be controlled. In Table 1 the luminances of the three phosphors,
the total luminance of the monitor, the mean retinal illuminances during ERG and
psychophysical measurements, the large field (10°) CIE coordinates and the
mean photoreceptor excitations during the ERG measurements are given. In Figure 1, the mean excitations in the L- and the M-cones
(expressed in cone td) during ERG recordings at each state of adaptation are
displayed. Figure 1 clearly visualizes that, relative to
the baseline condition, the excitation in either the L- or the M-cones were
altered. Furthermore, the plot shows that in two conditions (Lmax and Mmax) the
cone excitations were increased, whereas in the remaining two adaptation
conditions (Lmin and Mmin) the cone excitations were decreased. The amount of
increase and decrease of M-cone excitation in the Mmax and Mmin conditions
respectively were identical. Similarly, the amount of increase and decrease of
L-cone excitation were identical in the Lmax and Lmin conditions. The excitation
changes in the L- and the M-cones were very similar.
The pupil of the observer was dilated with 0.5%
tropicamide resulting in a pupil diameter of about 8 mm. On the basis of the
differences in pupil size (and neglecting the Stiles-Crawford effect), the mean
retinal illuminances and the mean excitations in the photoreceptors were a
factor of approximately 7 smaller in the psychophysical experiments. The eyes
were light adapted for at least 10 minutes prior to recording. Corneal ERG
responses were measured with DTL fiber electrodes which were positioned on the
conjunctiva directly beneath the cornea. Gold cup electrodes were attached to
the ipsilateral temple and the forehead and served as reference and ground
electrodes respectively. The monitor was positioned at 10 cm from the
observer’s eye resulting in a stimulus size of 124 by 108 degrees. The
stimuli were 30 Hz square wave modulations of the red, green and blue phosphors
with predefined Michelson contrast
(=Imax-Imin/Imax+Imin
x 100% in
which the
Imax
and
Imin
are the maximal and minimal luminant output in the phosphor) so that the
appropriate excitation modulation of the cone or rod photopigments (expressed in
cone or rod contrasts) was obtained. The excitations of the phosphors were
modulated by the graphics card on the basis of a temporal envelope, which was
independent of the refresh rate. In this manner a 30 Hz stimulus is possible
even if the refresh rate of the monitor is not an integer multiple of the
stimulus frequency.
The ERG responses were obtained from the averages of 48
sweeps each lasting one second. At the 30 Hz stimulus frequency, the first
harmonic component out of the Fourier analysis on the ERG signals dominated the
total response. Therefore, the ERG amplitudes and phases were defined as the
amplitudes and phases of the first harmonic components. Data acquisition started
about 4 sec after a change in background. This adaptation time was considered
enough for these relatively subtle changes in background. Furthermore, we did
not notice a systematic change in the ERG response over
time. Figure 1.
Schematic representation of the adaptation conditions during ERG recordings. The
used states of cone adaptation, expressed as time averaged L- and M-cone
trolands, given for the five states of adaptation. During the psychophysical
measurements, the mean excitations were a factor of approximately 7 smaller.
Observe that, in comparison with the baseline condition, only one cone type is
adapted. All adaptations are approximately equidistant to the baseline
conditions, indicating that the change in adaptation is about the same for all
conditions. The state of S-cone adaptation was constant at all conditions
(about 2200 S-cone td during ERG recordings). The mean luminances are also
given. At each state of adaptation, selective L- and M-cone modulation is
presented. In the ERG measurements, L- and M-cone contrast was always 15%. In
none of the stimuli the S-cones were modulated. Rods were modulated by the
stimuli. The rod contrasts were larger in the selective M-cone stimuli.
For the baseline adaptation condition, and at the 30 Hz
stimulus frequency, we found a linear relationship between cone contrast and
response amplitude ( Kremers & Scholl,
2001; Kremers et al. 1999; Usui et al. 1998a). We assumed that the linear
relationship was also present at the other states of adaptation. We checked this
for one subject. Owing to this linear relationship we were able to describe the
complete changes in ERG amplitudes by measuring the response amplitudes at one
cone contrast: either 15% L-cone contrast and 0% M-cone contrast or
vice versa. As was stated above, S-cone
contrast was 0% at all conditions. The rod contrasts at each stimulus are given
in Table 2. The L-cone selective stimuli
stimulated the rods with 3.9-5.1 % contrast (dependent on the state of
adaptation) in counter-phase with the L-cones (indicated by the negative sign).
For the M-cone selective stimuli, the rods were modulated in phase with the
M-cones with 14.0-14.8 % contrast (both M-cone and rod contrasts have the
negative sign indicating a counter-phase modulation with the modulation of the
red phosphor. In previous measurements, we found that rod responses did not
influence the ERGs at the baseline condition (Kremers & Scholl, 2001).
The issue of possible intrusion of rod responses will be discussed in a later
section.
Psychophysical Measurements
Table 2. Rod Contrasts During
ERG Recordings.
|
Adaptation conditions
|
|
Baseline
|
Lmax
|
Lmin
|
Mmax
|
Mmin
|
|
Rod contrastin ERG(%)
|
Selective L-cone modulation (15% L-cone, 0% M-cone, 0%
S-cone contrast)
|
-4.5
|
-5.1
|
-3.9
|
-4.1
|
-4.9
|
|
Selective M-cone modulation (0% L-cone, -15% M-cone, 0%
S-cone contrast)
|
-14.4
|
-14.8
|
-14.0
|
-14.4
|
-14.3
|
The rod contrasts during ERG recordings at L- and
M-cone selective stimulation and at different states of adaptation. The rod
contrast is substantially larger at M-cone selective stimulation than at L-cone
selective stimulation. L-cones were modulated in phase and M-cones in counter
phase (indicated by a negative sign of the M-cone contrast) relative to the
modulation of the red phosphor. The rods were modulated in counter phase with
L-cones and in phase with M-cones.
For the psychophysical measurements, the monitor was
positioned at 114 cm from the observer’s eye. The stimuli were circular
and had a diameter of 4 deg. The stimuli were viewed through a 3 mm artificial
pupil positioned close to the subject’s eye. Owing to the artificial pupil
the mean retinal illuminance and the mean photoreceptor excitations were about a
factor of 7 lower than in the ERG measurements. The subjects were asked to
fixate the outer edge of the circular stimulus. Thus the center of the stimulus
was located at 2 deg. eccentricity. To avoid Troxler’s fading, they were
encouraged to make eye movements along the outer edge of the stimulus. The
stimuli were sinusoidal modulations at 11 different temporal frequencies varying
between 1 and 50 Hz (1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20 30, 40 and 50 Hz). Owing to the
temporal characteristics of the phosphors’ excitation and decay at the
100 Hz refresh rate, the stimuli are substantially distorted at temporal
frequencies above about 20 Hz. This had only a minor influence on the
results.
At each state of adaptation, flicker detection
thresholds were determined using a PEST procedure (Taylor & Creelman, 1967).
Briefly, a stimulus was presented until the subject indicated, by pressing a
button, whether or not he/she perceived the presence of a temporal modulation.
After the subject had pressed a button, the next stimulus was immediately
presented. If the subject perceived flicker at a certain stimulus strength, the
contrast in the next presentation was decreased. Conversely the contrast was
increased when the subject did not perceive flicker. After a direction reversal,
the changes in contrasts were halved. Thresholds were assumed to be reached when
the changes in contrast were less than 0.14 times the actual contrast. Two
randomly interleaved staircases were used: one starting at zero modulation, the
other starting at maximal modulation.
Cone Specific Adaptation in Trichromats
We measured ERG responses in normal trichromats to 15%
L-cone and 15% M-cone modulation at the five different states of adaptation
(Lmax and Lmin in which the L-cones are more and less adapted relative to the
baseline condition respectively; and the Mmax and the Mmin conditions in which
the M-cones are more and less adapted relative to the baseline condition
respectively; see methods). The response amplitudes of six subjects (MS, CS, JM,
US, VK, BK) are shown in Figure 2(a) and Figure 3(a). The response amplitudes are similar
in the baseline, Lmin and the Mmax conditions. However, the responses in the
Lmax and the Mmin conditions differed from the others: the L-cone driven
responses were much smaller than in the other conditions whereas the M-cone
driven responses were larger. The data show that selective adaptation in one
cone type can affect the ERG responses driven by the non-adapted cone. The
differences in state of adaptation in the different cones are relatively small.
Nevertheless, the changes in the responses can be dramatic, indicating that
adaptation can have a very large influence on the cone driven ERG
responses.
In the Lmax and Mmin
conditions, the output of the red phosphor was about 40 cd/m² during a
short phase of the modulation, approaching the maximal possible output of this
phosphor. To exclude the possibility that the described results were caused by
stimulus artifacts owing to distortions at high outputs of the red phosphor,
which were not captured by the calibration of the monitor, we repeated the
measurements in one subject with 10% L- and 10% M-cone modulation. Apart from an
overall decrease in response amplitude, the results were identical, indicating
that stimulus distortion is not the cause of the described effects.
Similar to previous experiments
(Kremers et al.,
2000),
we measured the flicker detection thresholds to L- and M-cone isolating stimuli
at different temporal frequencies. As an extension, we did not measure the
detection thresholds only at the baseline condition but also at the other
adaptation conditions. In Figure 2(b)-2(e)
and Figure 3(b)-3(e), the psychophysical L-
and M-cone sensitivities (expressed as the inverse of the L- or M-cone contrasts
at threshold) of the same subjects, whose ERG data are shown in Figure 2(a) and Figure 3(a) are displayed for the different
states of adaptation. Clearly, for all adaptation conditions, the subjects had
similar L- and M-cone sensitivities at low temporal frequencies (below 5 Hz).
But at high temporal frequencies (8 Hz and higher), the L- and M-cone
sensitivities were quite different. In the baseline, Lmin and Mmax conditions,
most subjects were more sensitive to L-cone than to M-cone modulation, whereas
in the Lmax and Mmin conditions all subjects were more sensitive to M-cone than
to L-cone modulation. We calculated the L-/M-cone sensitivity ratios from the
psychophysical data for each state of adaptation and plotted these as a function
of temporal frequency. These plots are shown in Figure 2(f) and Figure 3(f). At the right side of the plots, the
L-/M-cone amplitude ratios derived from the ERG data are displayed. The
psychophysically measured L-/M-cone sensitivity ratios at high but not at low
temporal frequencies are similar to the L-/M-cone ratios estimated from the ERG
data. Cone selective stimuli, as used in the present study, contain both
luminance and chromatic modulation. For such combined luminance and chromatic
stimuli it has been proposed that the chromatic channel mediates detection at
low temporal frequencies, whereas the luminance channel is responsible for
detection at high temporal frequencies ( Kremers, Lee, & Kaiser, 1992; Kelly & Norren, 1977). Thus, the data
indicate that when the luminance channel mediates detection (high temporal
frequencies), the ratio of L- to M-cone sensitivities depends on the state of
adaptation. When the detection is caused by the chromatic contents in the
stimuli (low temporal frequencies), the sensitivity ratios are around unity for
all adaptation
conditions. Figure 2. ERG response amplitudes and
psychophysical sensitivities in three trichromatic subject.
(a) The ERG response amplitudes to
L-cone (red squares) and to M-cone (green circles) selective stimuli at
different states of adaptation. In comparison with the baseline condition the
ERG amplitudes are quite different when adapted to a reddish background (Lmax
and Mmin). An adaptation in one cone also affects the responses in the
non-adapted cone. (b- e) Psychophysical
L- and M-cone sensitivities [defined as 100/(L- or M-cone contrast at detection
threshold)] as a function of temporal frequency, plotted separately for the
different states of adaptation. For comparison the sensitivities at baseline
condition are shown in each plot. At all adaptations, the sensitivities to L-
and M-cone selective stimuli are very similar at low temporal frequencies. At
high temporal frequencies, the sensitivities to L- and M-cone selective stimuli
differ. (f) The psychophysical L-/M-cone
ratio as a function of temporal frequency. Clearly the ratio is about unity at
low temporal frequencies. At high temporal frequencies the ratios are either
larger (baseline, Lmin, Mmax) or smaller (Lmax, Mmin) than one and correspond to
the L-/M-cone ratios derived from the ERGs (given on the right side of the
plot).
Figure 3. Data
of three additional subjects (US, VK, BK) presented in the same format as Figure
2.
To pursue this issue, we calculated the ratio of L- to
M-cone sensitivity estimated from the psychophysical measurements for eight
trichromatic subjects at each of the five adaptation conditions. At each
temporal frequency and each adaptation condition, we calculated the mean ratio
by first converting the individual ratios into their logarithm (to give the data
a normal distribution) averaging them and converting them back into the linear
range. In Figure 4(a), the mean ratios are
plotted as function of temporal frequency separately for the five different
adaptation conditions. It can be seen that the L-/M-cone sensitivity ratio for
detection mediated by the chromatic channel (low temporal frequencies) is about
unity for all adaptation conditions, whereas the ratio for detection mediated by
the luminance channel (high temporal frequencies) depends on the state of
adaptation. The mean L-/M-cone ratios estimated from the ERG recordings on the
same subjects are given on the right side of the plot. Again, there is a
correspondence between the L-/M-ratios in the ERGs with those derived from the
psychophysical data in which detection is mediated by the luminance channel
(high temporal frequencies) but not with the sensitivity ratios when the
chromatic channel mediates detection (low temporal
frequencies). Figure 4. Summary of the data obtained in
trichromats. (a) Averaged psychophysical
L-/M-cone ratio plotted versus temporal frequency. The mean ratio is about unity
at low temporal frequency. At high temporal frequencies, the mean ratio is
larger than one in the baseline, Lmin and Mmax conditions and smaller than one
in the Lmax and Mmin conditions. The ratios at high temporal frequencies
correspond to the mean L-/M-cone ratios estimated from the ERG data.
(b) Psychophysical L-/M-cone ratios,
estimated from high temporal frequency data as a function of the ERG derived
L-/M-ratios for each individual subject and each state of adaptation. There is a
close correlation between the two. (c)
Psychophysical L-/M-ratios, estimated from low temporal frequency data plotted
versus ERG derived L-/M-cone ratio. The psychophysical ratios are all around
unity, and are therefore not strongly correlated with the ERG data. Mean L-cone
(d) and M-cone
(e) sensitivities for each observer
normalized to the sensitivities at the baseline condition as a function of
temporal frequencies. At the right side normalized ERG response amplitudes are
displayed. The normalization eliminates individual differences in the data and
isolates effects of adaptation. The normalized ERG responses correspond with the
normalized psychophysical data at high temporal frequencies.
To extract a more reliable estimate of the L-/M-cone
sensitivity ratio in the luminance channel, we averaged for each individual and
each state of adaptation the L-/M-cone sensitivity ratios obtained at 10, 15 and
20 Hz. Similarly, the individual ratios in the chromatic channel were calculated
by averaging the ratios estimated from the 1, 2 and 4 Hz data. Figures 4(b) and 4(c) show the psychophysical
ratios mediated by the luminance and the chromatic channels respectively as a
function of the ERG derived L-/M-cone ratios for each individual and each
adaptation condition. Each symbol displays the data of one subject. It can be
seen that the L-/M-cone ratios in the ERG signals correlate closely with the
sensitivity ratios in the luminance channel (r² = 0.85), but much less with
the ratios in the chromatic channel (r² = 0.32), which all cluster around
unity.
The psychophysical ratios based upon action in the
luminance channel obtained in the baseline, Lmin and Mmax conditions were all
larger than unity (with the exception of data point of subject US marked with an
arrow), whereas those measured in the Lmax and Mmin conditions were all below
unity. Furthermore, the L-/M-cone ratios in the ERGs and in the psychophysical
luminance channel obtained in the baseline, Lmin and Mmax conditions varied
between different individual observers, confirming previous results (Kremers et al., 2000).
To study the effects of adaptation on the signals
driven by the individual cones without confounding the data with the above
mentioned individual differences, we normalized the L- and M-cone mediated
sensitivities (for the psychophysical data) and response amplitudes (for the ERG
data) at the different adaptation conditions to those obtained in the baseline
conditions. The mean normalized L- and M-cone sensitivities at the different
states of adaptation are shown as a function of temporal frequency in Figures 4(d) and 4(e) respectively. The data
indicate, that the effects of adaptation in the luminance channel correlate
closely with the changes in the ERG responses and that they are larger than the
changes in the chromatic channel.
Cone Specific Adaptation in Dichromats
To check that the adaptation conditions and stimuli
indeed selectively adapted and stimulated only the L- or the M-cones, we
repeated the measurements in two male protanopes and three male deuteranopes.
Because all deuteranopes and one protanope had only a single gene on their
X-chromosomes, coding for a normal L- or M-cone pigment respectively and because
the remaining dichromat was a multigene protanope with M-cone genes, coding for
identical and normal M-cone photopigments, we were confident that these subjects
were true dichromats. The mean ERG amplitudes and the mean psychophysical L- and
M-cone sensitivities of the protanopes are shown in Figures 5(a)-5(c) respectively. The mean data of
the deuteranopes are displayed in Figures
5(d)-5(f). The data are quite different in comparison with those obtained in
the trichromats. Generally, the protanopes’ L-cone driven and the
deuteranopes’ M-cone driven ERG responses and psychophysical sensitivities
are small at all adaptation conditions, indicating that the response amplitude
changes in the trichromats are not caused by stimulus artifacts. Furthermore, in
contrast with the trichromatic data ( cf. Figure
2), the psychophysical sensitivity curves all have similar shapes,
indicating that the thresholds are mediated by one postreceptoral pathway: the
luminance channel. A chromatic channel is absent.
However, the dichromats displayed residual but
significant responses and sensitivities to stimulation of the non-present cone
type when adapted to the reddish backgrounds (Lmax and Mmin). Furthermore, Lmax
and Mmin adaptation, seemed to have some influence on the response amplitudes of
the present cone type in protanopes and deuteranopes respectively. These effects
cannot be explained on the basis of simple mechanisms located in the L- and
M-cone driven pathways. The possible causes will be discussed in a later
section. But these effects are generally smaller than those found in
trichromats, indicating that they can only partially explain the trichromatic
data so that the conclusions about cone adaptation in the trichromats are still
valid.
Measurements in the S-Cone Monochromat
We also performed the same ERG and psychophysical
measurements with an S-cone monochromat, lacking both L- and M-cones. The data
are displayed in Figures 5(g)-5(i). At all
adaptation conditions and for both L- and M-cone selective stimuli, the ERG
amplitudes and the psychophysical sensitivities were extremely small or not
measurable.
The Role of Rod Driven Signals
In the measurements described above, rods were adapted
and also stimulated. Previously, we found that the rod driven ERG signals in the
baseline adaptation condition is very small when the stimulus frequency is 30 Hz
(Kremers & Scholl, 2001).
However, we do not know what role rod signals can play at the other states of
adaptation. To address this issue, additional ERG measurements on four
trichromats, the single gene protanope and one single gene deuteranope were
conducted at the same adaptation conditions for the L- and the M-cones as
before. Furthermore, the L- and M-cone contrasts at the different adaptation
conditions were identical with those used before. In contrast with the previous
conditions the state of adaptation of rods was
Figure 5: Summary of the data obtained in the
dichromats and in an S-cone monochromat.
(a-c) Mean data obtained from
measurements with the protanopes. (a)
Mean ERG response amplitudes to L- (red squares) and M-cone (green circles)
selective stimuli plotted versus adaptation.
(b) Mean psychophysical sensitivities to
L-cone selective modulation at the different adaptations as a function of
temporal frequency. (c) Mean
psychophysical sensitivities to M-cone selective modulation at the different
adaptations as a function of temporal frequency. If the sensitivity curve is not
shown, then no threshold could be obtained.
(d-f) and
(g-i) Similar data as in
(a-c) for the deuteranopes and the
S-cone monochromat respectively.
kept constant. In addition, the rods were not
stimulated by any of the stimuli (i.e. rod contrast was 0%). But, the S-cones
were adapted and stimulated in the different conditions. It is known from
previous studies (Usui et al. 1998a) that
the S-cone driven response amplitude in 30Hz flicker ERG is very small and can
be neglected. However, the S-cone modulation would result in a strong signal in
the psychophysical task so that psychophysical measurements are not useful under
these conditions. We therefore only performed ERG measurements with these
stimuli. The results are depicted in Figure 6
together with the results of the previous measurements (0% S-cone contrast; no
S-cone adaptation) in the same subjects. In Figure 6(a) the mean data of the four
trichromats are displayed. The squares show the ERG amplitudes for L-cone
selective stimuli. The circular symbols show the M-cone driven ERG amplitudes.
The basic results are similar in the two series of measurements. This strongly
suggests that the adaptation effects are mainly mediated in the cones and their
postreceptoral pathways. But, the ERG amplitudes are smaller in the conditions
in which the rods are not stimulated and adapted, and the amplitude decrease is
generally larger for M-cone selective stimuli. This can be expected when rod
responses do influence the data because the rod contrasts were larger in the
original measurements for selective M-cone stimuli (about 14% see Table 1) than for the selective L-cone stimuli
(about 4% see Table 1). As a result, the
L-/M-cone ERG amplitude ratios ( Figure 6(b))
are increased in most conditions with silent rod
stimuli. Figure
6(c)
shows the ERG amplitudes in the single gene protanope. Again the response
amplitudes are smaller, especially for selective M-cone stimuli suggesting that
rod responses might be involved in the data with silent S-cone stimuli. The data
on the single gene deuteranope, Figure 6(d),
are less conclusive but indicate that rods driven signals might influence the
results. Figure 6. Results of additional ERG measurements
(rods controlled; with 0% rod contrast and rod adaptation constant) on 4
trichromats, one protanope and one deuteranope presented together with those of
the previously described measurements (S-cone controlled; with 0% S-cone
contrast and contrast S-cone adaptation). The L- and M-cone response amplitudes
of trichromats (a), the
protanope (c), the
deuteranope (d) and the
trichromats’ mean L-/M-cone ERG amplitude ratios
(b) at different adaptation states are
displayed. In trichromats silencing the rods instead of S-cones results in an
amplitude decrease, which is generally larger for M-cone driven signals. As a
result, the L-/M-cone ratio increases (except at the Mmin condition). The
protanope M-cone driven amplitudes are also influenced; they are smaller at all
conditions. The changes in the deuteranope are less conclusive.
Adaptation in Trichromats
The results show that cone selective adaptation can
strongly influence the cone driven signals in the luminance channel and in the
pathway leading to an ERG response, after adaptation to reddish backgrounds as
is the case in the Lmax and Mmin conditions; Figures 2(a), 2(b), and 2(e), also Figures 3(a), 3(b), and 3(e). When adapted to
greenish backgrounds, as in the Lmin and Mmax conditions, L- and M-cone driven
responses in the ERGs were similar to those measured in the baseline condition
( Figure 2(a) and Figure 3(a)). Furthermore, the psychophysical
sensitivities to L- and M-cone selective stimuli are similar in the Lmin, Mmax
and the baseline conditions ( Figures 2(c) &
2(d) and Figures 3(c) & 3(d)). Padmos
and van Norren
(1971)
already described the influences of adaptation on the spectral sensitivities
measured with a 40 Hz flicker ERG and with the psychophysical heterochromatic
flicker photometry paradigm. In agreement with our data, they found that
adaptation influences the two spectral sensitivities in a similar manner.
Moreover, they showed that blue and red adapting backgrounds influenced the
spectral sensitivities, but that an effect of a green background was
absent.
Our data strongly suggest that L- and M-cone driven
signals in the luminance channel and the ERG pathways are extremely sensitive to
changes in adaptation. There is evidence that the L-/M-cone ERG ratio and
luminance based psychophysical L-/M-ratio in individuals are correlated with the
ratio of L- to M-cone numbers in the retina ( Brainard et al., 2000; Kremers et al., 2000). The results in the
present study confirm that there are individual differences in L-/M-cone ERG and
luminance based sensitivity ratios, but they also show that the ratios depend
upon the state of adaptation and therefore the correlation with the number of
cones can not be a one to one relationship.
The ERG is a complex signal that arises in the action
of many cell types, including the bipolar cells ( Bush & Sieving, 1996). It has been shown
that the ERG is not only the effect of a vector addition between L- and M-cone
driven signals (Kremers et al. 1999) but
also between signals originating in the on- and off-bipolar cells (Kondo & Sieving, 2002). The effects of
cone selective adaptation might therefore not necessarily be present in the
cones themselves by might also be present in a change of balance in the on- and
off-bipolar cell contributions to the ERGs.
The effects of adapting one cone type leads also to a
change in the response driven by the non-adapted cone. Interestingly, the
changes in the ratios can be very large although the changes in state of
adaptation for the different cones are relatively subtle. Responses of
horizontal cells to cone isolating stimuli were not affected by adaptation in
the other
cone
(Dacey, Lee, Stafford, Smith
&
Pokorny,
1996).
H1 horizontal cells receive additive inputs from L- and M-cones and have
spectral sensitivities similar to the luminosity function ( Dacey & Lee, 1999; Dacey, Lee, Stafford, Smith & Pokorny,
1996). These data would suggest that H1 horizontal cells might play a role
in the psychophysical luminance channel. The different influence of adaptation
on the cone signals in the luminance channel and in the responses of the
horizontal cells, however, indicates that there is not necessarily a causal
relationship between the two.
Our data show that, when the chromatic channel mediates
flicker detection, the L-/M-cone sensitivity ratios are around unity for all
trichromatic observers and for all adaptation conditions used in the present
study. This confirms previous proposals ( Hood et
al., 2002; Kremers et al., 2000; Pokorny, Smith & Wesner, 1991) that a
mechanism is present in the chromatic channel that compensates for individual
differences in L- and M-cone densities. From the present data, we can extend the
presence of the compensatory mechanism to different adaptation conditions. We
cannot exclude the possibility that the compensatory mechanism fails when
stronger adaptation backgrounds are used. We suggest that the compensatory
mechanism in the chromatic channel has a retinal origin. Possibly, the
ontogenetic development of the compensatory mechanism is experience based,
resulting in a continuous tuning of the L- and M-cone driven signals, so that
the output of PC-cells, which are probably the physiological basis of the
chromatic channel ( Kremers et al. 1992;
Lee, Martin, & Valberg, 1989; Lee, Pokorny, Smith, Martin, & Valberg,
1990, is set to nearly zero (indicating optimal cone opponency) when
luminance modulation is presented and MC-cells are responding strongly. To do
so, the system must be able to distinguish between the L- and M-cone driven
signals. The compensatory mechanism is not present in the pathway leading to a
30 Hz ERG response, which includes the activity of bipolar cells (Bush & Sieving, 1996). The
most probable site of the compensatory mechanism is therefore at the stage of
the amacrin cells or retinal ganglion cells.
Adaptation in Dichromats and in the S-cone Monochromat
Generally, the ERG responses and the psychophysical
sensitivities of the dichromats to the stimulation of the non-present cones were
small, indicating that the adaptation processes described for the trichromats
have a physiological origin.
However, we measured residual responses and
sensitivities to stimulation of the non-present cone in the Lmax and Mmin
conditions, especially in the deuteranopes. Furthermore, selective adaptation of
the L- and M-cones had an effect on a measured responses in protanopes and
deuteranopes respectively.
There are three possibilities that can explain the
above described data in the dichromats: (1) stimulus artifacts and
miscalculations in the derivation of the stimulus conditions, (2) spatial
differences in photoreceptors absorption spectra as result from variability in
the cones or in pre-receptoral absorption (caused by the macular pigment or by
chromatic aberration) at different retinal eccentricities and (3) the intrusion
of rod driven signal.
Stimulus artifacts and miscalculations in the derivation of the stimulus conditions
The ERG responses and the psychophysical sensitivities
in the S-cone monochromat are very small, indicating that stimulus artifacts,
resulting in substantial S-cone stimulation, are not present. Thus, these data
confirm that stimulus artifacts and miscalculations do not have a large
influence. An additional indication that stimulus artifacts can be excluded
comes from the trichromatic data: stimulus artifacts would have identical
effects at all temporal frequencies. But, the psychophysical data in the
trichromats show that the change in sensitivity is different for low and high
temporal frequencies (see Figures 2,
3, and 4).
Spatial differences in pre-retinal absorption
One of the causes of the residual responses and
sensitivities to stimulation of the non-present cone in the Lmax and Mmin
conditions might be the variability in pre-retinal absorption at different
retinal locations, so that a cone response is never completely silenced. To
study a possible influence of the spatial variability on the data, we repeated
the psychophysical measurements in a deuteranope with the center of the stimulus
presented at 4 deg. eccentricity. Furthermore, we repeated the measurements with
a centrally fixated stimulus, which was also smaller than in the other
measurements (1 deg. in diameter). Apart from an absolute change in sensitivity,
we did not observe any major changes in the relative sensitivities to L- and
M-cone isolating stimuli, indicating that the residual sensitivities in the Lmax
and Mmin conditions were still present. These data show that the spatial
variability in the pre-retinal absorption cannot be the cause for the residual
sensitivity.
Intrusion of rod driven signals could be another
explanation for the residual responses and sensitivities in the dichromats.
Indeed, the residual responses and sensitivities to selective M-cone stimuli in
the deuteranopes are larger than those to selective L-cone stimuli in the
protanopes. The rod contrasts are larger in the selective M-cone stimuli than in
the selective L-cone stimuli (see Table 2).
Thus, a possible rod intrusion could be expected to be larger in selective
M-cone stimuli. Furthermore, we found that the residual ERG responses and
psychophysical sensitivities were only found with reddish backgrounds (Lmax and
Mmin) at which the rod adaptation (in terms of rod td; see Table 1) was smaller and thus at which rods can
be expected to be more sensitive. Finally, the results of the ERG measurements
in the conditions at which the rods were neither stimulated nor adapted, show
that rod signals might indeed influence the data.
However, there are also some arguments against rod
intrusion as explanation of the residual responses and sensitivities. Purely rod
driven signals are measured in the S-cone monochromat because this subjects
lacks M- and L-cones and S-cones were not stimulated. Repeating the
psychophysical measurements on the S-cone monochromat with stimuli in which the
rods and S-cones were not modulated, so that only L- and M-cones were
stimulated, completely abolished the sensitivities, indicating that the very
small sensitivities of the S-cone monochromat shown in Figure 5h and 5i, are rod driven. These
sensitivities are much smaller than the residual responses and sensitivities in
the dichromats. Furthermore, in comparison with the data on the dichromats, the
rod driven psychophysical sensitivities have a different dependency on temporal
frequency. It therefore seems that the rod driven signals in the S-cone
monochromat are very small and cannot explain the residual responses in the
dichromats. But, there is strong evidence that two rod pathways exist ( Kolb & Nelson, 1983; Nelson, 1977; Stockman, Sharpe, Rüther, & Nordby,
1995), a slower pathway (more sensitive at very low retinal illuminances)
using the rod bipolar cells and the AII amacrin cells and a faster pathway (more
sensitive at high scotopic or mesopic luminance levels) that uses the gap
junctions between the rods and the cones
(Kolb,
1977).
The S-cone monochromat has no or only limited access to this latter pathway.
Thus, although a rod driven signal via
the rod bipolar cells can be excluded as explanation for the residual responses
and sensitivities in dichromats, the data from the S-cone monochromat cannot
exclude the possibility of rod intrusion
via gap junctions with the L- and/or
the M-cones.
The repetitions of the psychophysical measurements in
the deuteranope with stimuli at larger eccentricity and with the small foveal
stimulus is a further argument against rod intrusion because in the different
measurements the number of stimulated rods were quite different. Nevertheless
the residual responses and sensitivities were still present. Finally, we
repeated the psychophysical measurements on a deuteranope with a dilated pupil
and without the use of the artificial pupil thereby increasing the retinal
illuminance by about a factor of 7 to approximately 3300 td. Again the residual
responses in the Lmax and Mmin conditions were present. These results suggest
that either the rod intrusion is quite robust or that additional mechanisms play
a role. These mechanisms would induce changes in the cone driven signals under
reddish illuminations both in protanopes and deuteranopes. A conventional
adaptation mechanism would not be able to explain these effects because they can
be expected to be absent in protanopes and deuteranopes.
The present work shows that, in trichromats, the
effects of cone selective adaptation originates in the cone driven pathways
themselves. Cone selective adaptation influences the L-/M-cone ratios in the ERG
signals and psychophysical sensitivities tapping the luminance channel. These
two L-/M-cone ratios correlate closely with each other. The L-/M-cone
sensitivity ratio in the chromatic channel is not influenced by cone selective
adaptation providing further evidence for the presence of a compensatory
mechanism.
This research was supported by Fortune Grant707-0-1
Tübingen to JK and HPNS; by the European Commission under contract
QLGA-1999-50423 to MWS, Fellow of the Marie Curie Training site; JK was
supported by a Heisenberg Fellowship of the German Research Council (DFG KR
131715-2); JK and CS were supported by a grant of the German Academic Exchange
Council (DAAD) and CAPES (Brazil). The authors thank Bill Swanson for comments
on an earlier version of the manuscript.
Commercial relationships: none.
Brainard, D. H., Calderone
J. B., Nugent A. K., & Jacobs G. H. (1999). Flicker ERG responses to stimuli
parametrically modulated in color space. Investigative Ophthalmology &
Visual Science, 40, 2840-2847.
[PubMed]
Brainard, D. H., Roorda A.,
Yamauchi Y., Calderone J. B., Metha A. B., Neitz M., Neitz J., Williams D. R.,
& Jacobs G. H. (2000). Functional consequences of the relative numbers of L
and M cones. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 17, 607-614. [PubMed]
Bush, R. A. & Sieving P. A.
(1996). Inner retinal contributions to the primate photopic fast flicker
electroretinogram. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 13, 557-565. [PubMed]
Carroll, J., McMahon C.,
Neitz M., & Neitz J. (2000). Flicker-photometric electroretinogram estimates
of L:M cone photoreceptor ratio in men with photopigment spectra derived from
genetics. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 17, 499-509. [PubMed]
Dacey, D. M. & Lee, B. B.
(1999). Functional architecture of cone signal pathways in the primate retina.
In Gegenfurtner, K. R. & Sharpe, L. T. (eds), Color Vision; From genes to
perception. (pp. 181-202). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [PubMed]
Dacey, D. M., Lee B. B.,
Stafford D. M., Smith V. C., & Pokorny J. (1996). Horizontal cells of the
primate retina: cone specificity without cone opponency. Science, 271, 656-658.
[PubMed]
Eisner, A. & Macleod D.
I. (1981). Flicker photometric study of chromatic adaptation: selective
suppression of cone inputs by colored backgrounds. Journal of the Optical
Society of America, 71, 705-717. [PubMed]
Hood, D. C., Yu A. L., Zhang
X., Albrecht J., Jägle H., & Sharpe L. T. (2002). The multifocal visual
evoked potential and cone-isolating stimuli: Implications for L- to M-cone
ratios and normalization. Journal of Vision, 2, 178-189,
http://journalofvision.org/2/2/4/, DOI 10.1167/2.2.4. [Article]
Jacobs, G. H. & Deegan
II, J. F. (1997). Spectral sensitivity of macaque monkeys measured with ERG
flicker photometry. Visual Neuroscience, 14, 921-928. [PubMed]
Jacobs, G. H., Deegan
II, J. F., & Moran J. L. (1996). ERG measurements of the spectral
sensitivity of common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Vision Research, 36,
2587-2594. [PubMed]
Jacobs, G. H., Neitz J.,
& Krogh K. (1996). Electroretinogram flicker photometry and its
applications. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 13, 641-648.
[PubMed]
Kelly, D. H. & Norren D.
v. (1977). Two-band model of heterochromatic flicker. Journal of the Optical
Society of America, 67, 1081-1091. [PubMed]
Kolb, H. (1977). The
organization of the outer plexiform layer in the retina of the cat: electron
microscopy observations. Journal of Neurocytology, 6, 131-153. [PubMed]
Kolb, H. & Nelson R.
(1983). Rod pathways in the retina of the cat. Vision Research, 23, 301-312. [PubMed]
Kondo, M. & Sieving P. A.
(2002). Post-photoreceptoral activity dominates primate photopic 32-Hz ERG for
sine-,square- and pulsed stimuli. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual
Science, 43, 2500-2507. [PubMed]
Krauskopf, J. (2000).
Relative number of long- and middle-wavelength-sensitive cones in the human
fovea. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 17, 510-516. [PubMed]
Kremers, J., Lee B. B.,
& Kaiser P. K. (1992). Sensitivity of macaque retinal ganglion cells and
human observers to combined luminance and chromatic modulation. Journal of the
Optical Society of America A, 9, 1477-1485. [PubMed]
Kremers, J. & Scholl H.
P. N. (2001). Rod-/L-cone and rod-/M-cone interactions in electroretinograms at
different temporal frequencies. Visual Neuroscience, 18, 339-351. [PubMed]
Kremers, J., Scholl H. P.
N., Knau H., Berendschot T. T. J. M., Usui T., & Sharpe L. T. (2000). L- and
M-cone ratios in human trichromats assessed by psychophysics,
electroretinography and retinal densitometry. Journal of the Optical Society of
America A, 17 , 517-526. [PubMed]
Kremers, J., Usui T., Scholl
H. P. N., & Sharpe L. T. (1999). Cone signal contributions to
electroretinograms in dichromats and trichromats. Investigative Ophthalmology
& Visual Science, 40, 920-930. [PubMed]
Lee, B. B., Dacey D. M., Smith
V. C., & Pokorny J. (1999). Horizontal cells reveal cone type-specific
adaptation in primate retina. Proceedings National Academy of Science, 96,
14611-14616. [PubMed]
[Article]
Lee, B. B., Martin P. R., &
Valberg A. (1989). Sensitivity of macaque retinal ganglion cells to chromatic
and luminance flicker. Journal of Physiology, 414, 223-243. [PubMed]
Lee, B. B., Pokorny J., Smith V.
C., Martin P. R., & Valberg A. (1990). Luminance and chromatic modulation
sensitivity of macaque ganglion cells and human observers. Journal of the
Optical Society of America A, 7, 2223-2236. [PubMed]
Nelson, R. (1977). Cat cones
have rod input: a comparison of the response properties of cone-horizontal cell
bodies in the retina of the cat. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 172, 109-136.
[PubMed]
Padmos, P. & van Norren
D. (1971). Cone spectral sensitivity and chromatic adaptation as revealed by
human flicker electroretinography. Vision Research, 11, 27-42. [PubMed]
Pokorny, J., Smith, V. C.,
& Wesner, M. F. (1991). Variability in cone populations and implications. In
A. Valberg & B. B. Lee (Eds.), From pigments to perception: Advances in
understanding visual process. (pp. 1-9). New York: Plenum Press.
Stockman, A., MacLeod D. I.
A., & Johnson N. E. (1993). Spectral sensitivities of the human cones.
Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 10, 2491-2521.
[PubMed]
Stockman, A., Sharpe L. T.,
Rüther K., & Nordby K. (1995). Two signals in the human rod visual
system: a model based on electrophysiological data. Visual Neuroscience, 12,
951-970. [PubMed]
Swanson, W. H. (1993).
Chromatic adaptation alters spectral sensitivity at high temporal frequencies.
Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 10, 1294-1303. [PubMed]
Taylor, M. M. & Creelman
C. D. (1967). PEST: efficient estimates on probability functions. Journal of the
Acoustical society of America, 41, 782-787.
Usui, T., Kremers J., Sharpe
L. T., & Zrenner E. (1998a). Flicker cone electroretinogram in dichromats
and trichromats. Vision Research, 38, 3391-3396. [PubMed]
Usui, T., Kremers J., Sharpe
L. T., & Zrenner E. (1998b). Response phase of the flicker electroretinogram
(ERG) is influenced by cone excitation strength. Vision Research, 38, 3247-3251.
[PubMed]
Yeh, T., Lee B. B., &
Kremers J. (1995). Temporal response of ganglion cells of the macaque retina to
cone-specific modulation. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 12,
456-464. [ PubMed]
|
|