Figure 9 shows human slow-sequence mfERGs, with the same stimulus conditions as we used for the monkeys. The average responses of five normal subjects are shown in the left columns and the results for one individual, in the right columns. The human summed mfERG (
Fig. 9A , top row) bears a general resemblance to the monkey’s (
Fig. 4 , top row) including a qualitatively similar OP contribution. There are, however, four notable differences between the human and monkey data. First, the human OPs are smaller. This is especially noticeable in the outer rings (compare lower panels of
Figs. 9B and 4B ). Second, whereas the monkey’s OPs were largest in the central ring in the response density plots, the human OPs, as previously reported, were largest parafoveally.
20 Third, whereas the timing of the monkey OPs (
Fig. 4B , lower panel) from rings 1 and 2 markedly differ from those from rings 4 and 5, there is less difference in timing with eccentricity in the case of the human OPs (
Fig. 9B , lower panels). Fourth, there is less nasotemporal variation in the human OPs (compare
Fig. 9C , lower panel, with
Fig. 5A , middle). When the human responses were grouped into nasal and temporal chevrons, there was no significant difference between N1 and T1 OP RMS (
P = 0.61), perhaps due to the small amplitudes. OPs in N2 and T2 were so small that we did not compare them. However, we were able in individual cases to see these variations when we recorded slow-sequence mfERGs, interleaving 7 blank frames instead of 14, so that more trials could be averaged in the same 7-minute recording.