Another important difference between rod- and cone-driven OPs is that they have different time latencies. Contrary to previous results, we found that the cone-driven OPs in mice had longer latencies (∼13 ms) than the rod-driven OPs. Early studies on human subjects assumed that OPs with short latencies (OP
2 and OP
3) probably signal the activation of the cone pathway, and OPs with long latencies (OP
4 and OP
5) result from the activation of the rod system.
29 30 31 However, OP measurements in dark-adapting human subjects show that every individual OP could be generated postreceptorally through either a rod or a cone pathway,
31 implying that it is impossible to assign a class of retinal photoreceptors to the genesis of one or more OPs. Because both rod- and cone-driven OPs are superimposed in the composite scotopic OPs, our results suggest that short-latency OPs are rod-driven, whereas long-latency OPs contain both rod- and cone-driven signals. These findings are supported by other evidence. First, scotopic OP
4 has been shown to be abolished in human patients with cone-system abnormalities,
30 indicating that the OP
4 is associated with cone functions. Second, Hancock and Kraft
7 as well as Dong et al.
3 found that the long latency components of the extracted OPs had lower frequencies than did the earlier ones.
3 7 Data from our study demonstrate that cone-driven OPs have lower frequencies than rod-driven OPs. Third, early OPs (OP
1 and OP
2) have been found to react more to the scotopic background light, whereas late OPs (OP
3 and OP
4) have been shown to be more affected by the relatively brighter mesopic conditions.
32 Together, this evidence supports our conclusion that short-latency OPs are mainly rod-driven and long-latency OPs contain input from both rod and cone systems.