ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2026
The interaction between the ERG responses to sinusoidal modulation and flashes in mice.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
purposeTo study the interaction between responses to a sinusoidal modulation and a flash in the mouse ERG.
methodsWe recorded responses to pulses on a 1 Hz sinewave background (Pulse on Sine Stimuli: PoS) in mice. Flashes were presented at 8 different temporal phases relative to the sinewave background. Recordings were performed for three different luminance levels with equal ratio between flash intensity and sinewave mean luminance. Control recordings with flashes on steady background, 1 Hz sinewave without flashes, and noise without modulation were recorded with the same mean luminances.
resultsThe flash responses to the PoS stimuli depended strongly on the phase of the flash relative to the sinewave background. The flash response was small, when the instantaneous luminance of the sinewave was large. The flash response was large, when the sinewave luminance was small. The effect decreased with increasing mean luminance. The response to the sinewave background also depended on the phase of flash presentation. The sinewave response was small when the flash response was large for all luminances. The responses to the PoS stimuli could be described with a linear model that assumes that the responses to the combined stimuli are a scaled addition of the flash responses on a steady background and of the responses to the sinewave without a flash. The obtained scaling factors for both flash and sinewave responses depended on their relative phase.
conclusionThe responses to flashes and modulating background influence each other in a complex manner. This is in contrast to responses in human observers, where only the flash response is influenced by the flash phase relative to the sinewave background. We propose that mouse responses are more sluggish and are integrated over extended periods, resulting in complex mutual interactions between responses to flashes and backgrounds.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42684570What 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.