ArticleScientific reports2018
Reliable detection of low visual acuity in mice with pattern visually evoked potentials.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Direct comparison reveals algorithmic similarities in fly and mouse visual motion detection.iScience · 2023Article
- Antineonatal Fc Receptor Antibody Treatment Ameliorates MOG-IgG-Associated Experimental Autoimmune Encephalomyelitis.Neurology(R) neuroimmunology & neuroinflammation · 2022Article
- Effects of top-down influence suppression on behavioral and V1 neuronal contrast sensitivity functions in cats.iScience · 2022Article
- A template-matching algorithm for laminar identification of cortical recording sites from evoked response potentials.Journal of neurophysiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Measuring the optokinetic response (OKR) to rotating sinusoidal gratings is becoming an increasingly common method to determine visual function thresholds in mice. This is possible also through direct electrophysiological recording of the response of the neurons in the visual cortex to the presentation of reversing patterned stimuli, i.e. the pattern visually evoked potential (pVEP). Herein, we optimized the conditions for recording pVEPs in wild-type mice: we investigated the optimal depth (1, 2, or 3 mm) of the inserted electrode and the optimal stimulus pattern (vertical, horizontal, or oblique black and white stripes, or a checkerboard pattern). Visual acuity was higher when measured with the optimal pVEP recording conditions, i.e., with the electrode at 2 mm and a vertical-stripe stimulus (0.530 ± 0.021 cycle/degree), than with OKR (0.455 ± 0.006 cycle/degree). Moreover, in murine eyes with optic nerve crush-induced low vision, OKR could not measure any visual acuity, while pVEPs allowed the reliable quantification of residual vision (0.064 ± 0.004 cycle/degree). Our results show that pVEPs allow more sensitive measurement of visual function than the OKR-based method. This technique should be particularly useful in mouse models of ocular disease and low vision.
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.