Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24677162›Full record

ArticleJournal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology2014

Retinal ganglion cell topography and spatial resolution of two parrot species: budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus) and Bourke's parrot (Neopsephotus bourkii).

Mindaugas Mitkus, Sandra Chaib, Olle Lind, Almut Kelber

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Humpback whale (Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Change of ultraviolet light transmittance in growing chicken and quail eyes.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2016
    Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

4 authors.

Mindaugas MitkusLund Vision Group, Department of Biology, Lund University, Sölvegatan 35, 22362, Lund, Sweden, mindaugas.mitkus@biol.lu.se.
Sandra Chaib
Olle Lind
Almut Kelber

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Retinal ganglion cell (RGC) isodensity maps indicate important regions in an animal's visual field. These maps can also be combined with measures of focal length to estimate the theoretical visual acuity. Here we present the RGC isodensity maps and anatomical spatial resolving power in three budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus) and two Bourke's parrots (Neopsephotus bourkii). Because RGCs were stacked in several layers, we modified the Nissl staining procedure to assess the cell number in the whole-mounted and cross-sectioned tissue of the same retinal specimen. The retinal topography showed surprising variation; however, both parrot species had an area centralis without discernable fovea. Budgerigars also had a putative area nasalis never reported in birds before. The peak RGC density was 22,300-34,200 cells/mm(2) in budgerigars and 18,100-38,000 cells/mm(2) in Bourke's parrots. The maximum visual acuity based on RGCs and focal length was 6.9 cyc/deg in budgerigars and 9.2 cyc/deg in Bourke's parrots. These results are lower than earlier behavioural estimates. Our findings illustrate that retinal topography is not a very fixed trait and that theoretical visual acuity estimations based on RGC density can be lower than the behavioural performance of the bird.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell CountFovea CentralisIn Vitro TechniquesNeurogliaParrotsRetinaRetinal Ganglion CellsSpecies SpecificityVisual Fields

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.