Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16626487›Full record

ArticleBMC neuroscience2006

The photocurrent response of human cones is fast and monophasic.

J H van Hateren, T D Lamb

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC neuroscience, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Connectome of a human foveal retina.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Why rods and cones?Eye (London, England) · 2016
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

J H van HaterenDepartment of Neurobiophysics, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. j.h.van.hateren@rug.nl
T D Lamb

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe precise form of the light response of human cone photoreceptors in vivo has not been established with certainty. To investigate the response shape we compare the predictions of a recent model of transduction in primate cone photoreceptors with measurements extracted from human cones using the paired-flash electroretinogram method. As a check, we also compare the predictions with previous single-cell measurements of ground squirrel cone responses.

resultsThe predictions of the model provide a good description of the measurements, using values of parameters within the range previously determined for primate retina. The dim-flash response peaks in about 20 ms, and flash responses at all intensities are essentially monophasic. Three time constants in the model are extremely short: the two time constants for inactivation (of visual pigment and of transducin/phosphodiesterase) are around 3 and 10 ms, and the time constant for calcium equilibration lies in the same range.

conclusionThe close correspondence between experiment and theory, using parameters previously derived for recordings from macaque retina, supports the notion that the electroretinogram approach and the modelling approach both provide an accurate estimate of the cone photoresponse in the living human eye. For reasons that remain unclear, the responses of isolated photoreceptors from the macaque retina, recorded previously using the suction pipette method, are considerably slower than found here, and display biphasic kinetics.

Indexed as

LightModels, BiologicalAnimalsElectroretinographyHumansMacacaRetinal Cone Photoreceptor CellsSciuridaeTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID16626487
PMCPMC1464134

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.