ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2026
The luminance-response function of the photopic negative response (PhNR): analysing different stimulation, recording and measurement approaches.
Article in Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond Neovascularization: Light Response Deficits in Oxygen-Induced Retinopathy Models.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe photopic negative response (PhNR) is a measure of generalised retinal ganglion cell function. There has been heterogenous methodology to record this, with varied electrode type, stimulus luminance, temporal frequency and measurement approach. This study aimed to empirically explore these features to identify an optimal PhNR luminance-response protocol which produces the lowest variance and maximal efficiency to guide clinical protocols.
methodsTwelve healthy participants were recruited (age range 27-51y). Flash ERGs were simultaneously recorded from infraorbital skin and corneal fibre electrodes to a range of red flash stimuli (- 0.3-2.4 log cd.s/m
resultsThe PhNR luminance-response curves showed few significant differences with increasing temporal frequency, though inter-subject variability was highest for the slowest (1 Hz) and highest flash (5 Hz) stimulation rates. Background luminance reduced the relative sensitivity (K) but not maximal amplitude of the luminance-response curves (V
conclusionThis study demonstrates that temporal frequency can be increased significantly, optimally at 4 Hz, without compromising the PhNR. PhNR variance is lower with skin electrode recordings and PhNR amplitude measurements from the b-wave compared to corneal fibre electrodes and baseline-PhNR amplitudes.
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.