Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39523890›Full record

ReviewVisual neuroscience2024

Electroretinographic responses to periodic stimuli in primates and the relevance for visual perception and for clinical studies.

Jan Kremers, Cord Huchzermeyer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Visual neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. RLRL Therapeutic Feasibility and Potential Mechanism on Myopia.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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.

Jan KremersSection for Retinal Physiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9293-7380
Cord HuchzermeyerSection for Retinal Physiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0408-8981

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft HU2340/1-1Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft HU2340/1-2Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft KR1317/13-1Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft KR1317/13-2Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft KR1317/16-1Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft KR1317/17-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, electroretinograms (ERGs) are mainly recorded while using flashes as stimuli. In this review, we will argue that strong flashes are not ideal for studying visual information processing. ERG responses to periodic stimuli may be more strongly associated with the activity of post-receptoral neurons (belonging to different retino-geniculate pathways) and, therefore, be more relevant for visual perception. We will also argue that the use of periodic stimuli may be an attractive addition to clinically available retinal electrophysiological methods.

Indexed as

ElectroretinographyPhotic StimulationRetinaVisual PerceptionAnimalsHumansPrimatesVisual Pathwayschromaticityelectroretinogramluminancepsychophysicsrepetitive stimuliretino-geniculate pathways

Identifiers

PMID39523890
PMCPMC11579838

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.