March 2012
Volume 53, Issue 14
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   March 2012
On- And Off-ERG Responses Driven By L- And M-cones
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Jan J. Kremers
    Dept of Ophthalmology, University of Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
  • Gobinda Pangeni
    Ophthalmology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
  • Neil R. Parry
    Vision Science Centre, Manchester Royal Eye Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom
  • Declan McKeefry
    School of Optometry and Vision Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford, Uzbekistan
  • Ian J. Murray
    Optometry & Vis Sci, FLS, Univ of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Jan J. Kremers, None; Gobinda Pangeni, None; Neil R. Parry, None; Declan McKeefry, None; Ian J. Murray, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  DFG (KR 1317/9-1) to J.K. and G.P.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science March 2012, Vol.53, 775. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Jan J. Kremers, Gobinda Pangeni, Neil R. Parry, Declan McKeefry, Ian J. Murray; On- And Off-ERG Responses Driven By L- And M-cones. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2012;53(14):775.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose: : To study On- and Off-responses driven by L- and M-cones and by simultaneous modulation of the two in phase or in counterphase using sawtooth modulation profiles.

Methods: : A four primary LED stimulator was used to create sawtooth stimuli that elicit L- or M-cone responses (each at 18 and at 8% cone contrast; triple silent substitution): rapid-on ramp-off (+L or +M) for On-responses; rapid-off ramp-on (-L or -M) for Off-responses. In addition, the two were modulated simultaneously with equal contrasts (silent substitution for rods and S-cones) either in-phase (+L+M for On-responses; -L-M for Off-responses; 42% and 21% cone contrast in each cone) or in counterphase (+L-M rapid L-on M-off; -L+M rapid L-off, M-on; 9% cone contrast in each). ERG responses to these stimuli were measured in four color normal subjects.

Results: : The responses to L- and M-cone isolating stimuli were quite different: +M responses displayed much smaller and delayed A- and B-waves than +L responses, but similar PhNRs. -M responses were of similar amplitude but delayed compared to -L responses. ERGs to +L+M, -L-M displayed properties that were similar to the L-cone driven responses. +L-M and -L+M responses displayed properties of both the responses to L- and M-cone and isolating stimuli.

Conclusions: : There are fundamental differences between L-and M-cone driven On- and Off-responses, suggesting different post-receptoral processing of the signals driven by the two cone types. Responses to in-phase and counterphase simultaneous modulation of L- and M-cones are also differently processed.

Keywords: electroretinography: non-clinical • color vision • retina: distal (photoreceptors, horizontal cells, bipolar cells) 

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.