ArticleExperimental eye research2021
Comparison of macaque and human L- and M-cone driven electroretinograms.
Article in Experimental eye research, 2021. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Photopic negative response (PhNR) of the full-field electroretinogram as a biomarker of retinal ganglion cell loss in glaucoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Electroretinographic responses to periodic stimuli in primates and the relevance for visual perception and for clinical studies.Visual neuroscience · 2024Review
- Utility of Light-Adapted Full-Field Electroretinogram ON and OFF Responses for Detecting Glaucomatous Functional Damage.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Electroretinographic responses to luminance and cone-isolating white noise stimuli in macaques.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe macaque retina is often used as a model for the human retina. However, there are only a handful of direct in vivo comparisons of the retinal physiology in humans and macaques. In the current study, ERG responses to luminance, L-cone isolating and M-cone isolating stimuli with sinusoidal, sawtooth and square wave temporal profiles were measured. The results were compared with those obtained from human observers.
methodsThe responses from five anesthetized adult macaques were measured. Full field stimuli were created. L- and M-cone isolating stimuli were based on the triple silent substitution technique. Sinusoidal stimuli had temporal frequencies between 4 and 56 Hz in 4 Hz steps. Sawtooth stimuli with rapid-on ramp-off and with rapid-off ramp-on excitation profiles had a frequency of 4 Hz. Square stimuli were presented at 2 Hz.
resultsMacaque and human ERGs in response to L- and M-cone isolating stimuli reflect L/M opponency and luminance activity. In responses to sine waves, cone opponency dominates at low temporal frequencies (4-12 Hz); luminance dominates at high temporal frequencies. The responses to sawtooth and square wave stimuli reflect a mixture of chromatic and luminance activity. L:M response ratios vary between individuals both in macaques and humans. Macaques show more complex responses, including greater second harmonic contributions than those in humans.
conclusionsMacaque and human ERGs share basic underlying mechanisms reflecting L/M opponency and luminance activity. There may be quantitative differences possibly reflecting differences in contributions of inner retinal mechanisms to the ERGs.
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.