Temporal characteristics of peripheral inhibition of sustained and transient ganglion cells in cat retina

The temporal characteristics of transient and sustained retinal ganglion cells in the cat were assessed by varying the temporal relationship between a spot in the receptive field center and an annulus in the receptive field surround. The luminance of the annulus was also varied for some units. The maximum amount of suppression of the excitatory response from the center spot was produced when the annulus preceded the spot by about 38 msec for transient cells and by about 7 msec for sustained cells. The time course of peripheral inhibition for transient and sustained cells was also found to differ. These differences held at all luminance levels used but were minimized at both extremely low and extremely high contrast levels

The a-Wave Latency in Control Subjects and Patients with Retinal Diseases

Purpose: To determine the a-wave latency of the electroretinograms (ERGs) recorded from control subjects and patients with retinal diseases. Methods: The a-wave latency and implicit time (IT) were measured retrospectively from the ERGs of 40 control subjects and 99 patients. The patients included 9 with complete congenital stationary night blindness (cCSNB), 13 with achromatopsia or cone dystrophy, 5 with supernormal and delayed rod ERG syndrome, and 72 with retinitis pigmentosa (RP). To assess whether latency measurements can be obtained reliably by different observers from patients with smaller a-wave amplitudes and noisier baselines, the a-wave latency and IT of the ERG of the right eye of 10 control subjects and 10 patients with RP were measured by three observers. Results: The mean a-wave latency measured for the same 10 control ERGs by three observers differed by less than 1 millisecond while the mean IT differed by 1.7 milliseconds. For 10 ERGs from RP patients, the mean for the a-wave latency measured by the three observers differed by less than 2.0 milliseconds and by 1.1 millisecond for the IT. The coefficient of variation varied from 24.8% to 36.7% for the latency and from 11.5% to 16.0% for the IT. The a-wave latencies elicited by the 0-dB stimulus under scotopic and photopic conditions from the 40 control subjects were not statistically different. The a-wave latency in patients with cCSNB did not differ significantly from that in control subjects. The longer a-wave latency in patients with achromatopsia suggested that the rods have a longer latency than cones. The scotopic and photopic a-wave latencies were significantly longer in RP patients. The longer latency in RP patients was not due to smaller a- or b-wave amplitudes. Conclusions: The a-wave latency can be measured as reliably as the IT in control subjects but the reliability is not as good for the latency as for the IT in RP patients. The larger coefficients of variation in RP patients were most likely due to the measurements being made from RP patients at different stages of their disease. Our results suggest that the a-wave latency in control subjects is determined by cones under both scotopic and photopic conditions. The longer a-wave latency in RP patients suggests that the rods and cones are altered over a significant area of the retina

Evidence that a-Wave Latency of the Electroretinogram Is Determined Solely by Photoreceptors

Purpose: To identify the retinal cells that determine the a-wave latency of rats. Methods: Electroretinograms (ERGs) were recorded from the rod-dominated (0.85% cones) retinas of Long-Evans rats following an intravitreal injection of 1 μL of 40 mM 2-amino-4-phosphonobutyric acid to block the activity of the ON pathway of the second order retinal neurons. ERGs were also recorded following an intraperitoneal injection of sodium iodate to destroy the retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells. Damage to a large area of the retina was produced by constant light exposure, and focal damage to the retina was induced by argon laser photocoagulation. The effects of age and anesthesia level on the a-wave latency were also determined. Results: Blocking the activity of the ON pathway of the second order retinal neurons did not alter the a-wave latency, and destroying the RPE cells also did not alter the a-wave latency. Damage to a large area of the retina resulted in prolonging the latency but focal retinal damage did not alter the a-wave latency. The a-wave latency was longer in young rat pups but was adult-like by 18 days. The level of anesthesia had no effect on the latency except at very deep stages. Conclusions: The a-wave latency is determined solely by the activity of the photoreceptors. A prolonged latency would indicate that the photoreceptors are damaged over a large area of the retina

Reliability and Significance of Measurements of a-Wave Latency in Rats

Purpose: To determine whether measurements of the a-wave latency of the electroretinogram (ERG) can be made as reliably as that of the implicit time (IT) in rats. In addition, to determine the relationship between the potential level selected for the latency and the baseline potential level. Methods: ERGs, elicited by different stimulus intensities, were recorded from Long-Evans rats. The a-wave latency was determined by measuring the time between the stimulus onset and the beginning of the negative-going a-wave, and the IT was measured as the time between the stimulus onset and the peak of the a-wave. To test the reliability of the measurements of the latency, the a-wave latency and the IT were measured by three independent observers for the same 15 ERGs. Results: The mean a-wave latency was approximately 14 milliseconds, and the mean a-wave implicit time was approximately 36 milliseconds. The mean of the a-wave latency and the IT, as measured by the three observers, were within 1 millisecond of each other. The coefficient of variation was as good for the latency as for the IT of the a-wave. The potential level selected for the latency was lower than the mean baseline potential level by 1 to 2 standard deviations. Conclusions: Selection of the a-wave latencies can be made as reliably as that for the IT. Because the a-wave latency is not affected by the activity of the second order neurons, the latency is a better measure than the IT of the time course of the a-wave