April 2011
Volume 52, Issue 14
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2011
The Bioelectric Field Of The Pattern Electroretinogram (PERG) In The Mouse: Differences With The Flash Electroretinogram (FERG)
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Tsung-Han Chou
    Bascom Palmer Eye Inst, Univ of Miami, Miller Sch of Med, Miami, Florida
  • Vittorio Porciatti
    Bascom Palmer Eye Inst, Univ of Miami, Miller Sch of Med, Miami, Florida
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Tsung-Han Chou, None; Vittorio Porciatti, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIH RO1 EY019077, NIH center grant P30-EY14801, unrestricted grant to the University of Miami from Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2011, Vol.52, 690. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Tsung-Han Chou, Vittorio Porciatti; The Bioelectric Field Of The Pattern Electroretinogram (PERG) In The Mouse: Differences With The Flash Electroretinogram (FERG). Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2011;52(14):690.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : Neural processing in the retina generates an electric field throughout the eye and surrounding tissue. As PERG and FERG have different retinal generators, we investigated differences in the bioelectric fields of the PERG and FERG in the mouse model.

Methods: : PERGs and FERGs were recorded simultaneously from each eye in 18 mice (C57BL/6J, n=10, DBA/2J, n=4, DBA/1J, n=4) using corneal silver loops referenced to a subcutaneous needle on the back of the head. PERG stimuli were horizontal gratings of 0.05 cycles/deg and 100% contrast. Photopic FERG stimuli were strobe flashes superimposed on and adapting background. Stimuli were delivered either monocularly (with the non-stimulated eye occluded) or binocularly. In some experiments, TTX was injected in one eye and saline in the contralateral eye.

Results: : Monocular PERGs were recordable from both the stimulated and the non-stimulated eye with similar amplitudes. Under binocular stimulation, the PERG amplitude was 1.7 times (SE 0.18) larger than the monocular amplitude (p<0.01). TTX injected in the stimulated eye abolished the PERG in both eyes, whereas TTX injected in the non-stimulated eye had no effect on PERG of both eyes. Monocular FERGs were recordable from the stimulated eye only. Binocular and monocular FERGs had the same amplitudes.

Conclusions: : PERG and FERG generate different bioelectric fields in the mouse. The FERG signal does not propagate to the non-stimulated eye as expected, whereas the PERG displays obvious cross-talk, including summation under binocular stimulation. Results are relevant for better understanding of PERG generators and have technical implications for binocular recordings.

Keywords: ganglion cells • electroretinography: non-clinical • retinal connections, networks, circuitry 
×
×

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.

×