ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2012
The bioelectric field of the pattern electroretinogram in the mouse.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vitamin K1 Alleviates Retinal Inflammation Following Acute Ocular Hypertension by Modulating Microglial Ferroptosis.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- High-Throughput Binocular Pattern Electroretinograms in the Mouse.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Longitudinal in vivo CaProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Visual Dysfunction after Repetitive Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in a Mouse Model and Ramifications on Behavioral Metrics.Journal of neurotrauma · 2021Article
- Compartmental Differences in Macular Retinal Ganglion Cell Function.Translational vision science & technology · 2021Article
- Retinal ganglion cell ablation in guinea pigs.Experimental eye research · 2021Article
- Longitudinal Morphological and Functional Assessment of RGC Neurodegeneration After Optic Nerve Crush in Mouse.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2020Article
- Adaptation of retinal ganglion cell function during flickering light in the mouse.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Retinal cross talk in the mammalian visual system.Journal of neurophysiology · 2016Article
- Electrophysiological assessment of retinal ganglion cell function.Experimental eye research · 2015Review
- Retinal Neurodegeneration in db/db Mice at the Early Period of Diabetes.Journal of ophthalmology · 2015Article
- Robust mouse pattern electroretinograms derived simultaneously from each eye using a common snout electrode.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the bioelectric field associated with the pattern electroretinogram (PERG) with that of the flash electroretinogram (FERG) in the mouse.
methodsPERGs and FERGs were recorded from each eye in 32 C57BL/6J mice using corneal silver loops referenced to a subcutaneous needle on the back of the head. PERG stimuli were horizontal gratings of 0.05 cycles per degree and 98% contrast reversing 2 times per second. Light-adapted FERG stimuli were bright strobe flashes. Stimuli were presented either monocularly or binocularly. In some experiments, TTX was injected in one eye and saline in the contralateral eye.
resultsThe PERG recorded from the contralateral, occluded eye had slightly larger amplitude (1.14 ×, P < 0.01) and longer latency (+1.57 ms, P < 0.01) compared with the ipsilateral eye. Under binocular stimulation, the PERG amplitude was much larger (1.67 ×, P < 0.01) than the monocular amplitude. TTX injected in the stimulated eye drastically reduced the PERG in both eyes. Monocular FERGs were recordable from the stimulated eye only and were moderately reduced by TTX. Binocular and monocular FERGs had similar amplitudes.
conclusionsPERG and FERG generate different bioelectric fields in the mouse. The PERG bioelectric field is consistent with a dipole model whose axis is orthogonal to the eye axis, whereas the standard dipole model for the FERG is coaxial. Possible sources of the PERG bioelectric field are unmyelinated optic nerve axons adjacent to the sclera. Results provide new insights on the generators of the PERG signal and its alterations in mouse models of glaucoma and optic nerve diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.