Comparison of prediction and experiment, for families of flash responses recorded using the suction pipette method (
A,
C) or the scotopic ERG
a-wave (
B,
D).
Black traces: experiment;
red traces: plot of
equation 1 , using calculated number of photoisomerizations, Φ, and fixed values of amplification constant
A and effective delay time
t eff. (
A) Salamander rod after incorporation of the calcium buffer BAPTA (data from
Figure 2Bof Ref.
11 ); dark current, −29 pA;
A = 0.065 s
−2;
t eff = 20 ms. (
B) Human rod (data from Figure 4 of Ref.
12 ); dark current, −13.5 pA;
A = 4 s
−2;
t eff = 2.2 ms. (
A,
B) Time origin is middle of flash stimulus, after allowance for electronic filtering delay. (
C) Mouse ERG a-waves (data from Figure 3 of Ref.
13 );
a max = −500 μV,
A = 5 s
−2,
t eff = 2.6 ms, τ
m = 0.8 ms. (
D) Human rod-isolated ERG
a-waves (data from Figure 1E of Ref.
14 for subject TDL);
a max = −207 μV,
A = 4.3 s
−2,
t eff = 2 ms, τ
m = 0.7 ms. For the ERG traces, the predictions of
equation 1have been filtered by a time constant τ
m representing the cell’s capacitive time constant
15 ; for the single-cell recordings, that time constant is lumped into the total delay time. The values for Φ, and hence for
A, are based on the following intensity-conversion factors: (
A) Salamander rod collecting area,
A c = 20 μm
2; (
B) human rod,
A c = 0.85 μm
2 (reduced from the original value of 1.7 μm
2 on the basis that the diameter of the rod outer segment is likely to have been 1.4 μm rather than 2 μm); (
C) mouse eye, rod collecting area at the cornea, 0.2 μm
2; (
D) human eye, troland conversion factor
K = 8.6 isomerizations s
−1 Td
−1.