Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T02:04:49.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of human and monkey retinal photoreceptor sampling mosaics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2009

Chander N. Samy and
Joy Hirsch
Chander N. Samy
Affiliation:
Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven
Joy Hirsch
Affiliation:
Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We test the hypothesis that the diameters of foveal and near-foveal rods and cones for one well-studied human photoreceptor mosaic and one well-studied monkey photoreceptor mosaic (Macaca fascicularis) a scaled relative to focal length. We conclude that this hypothesis is not supported. Rather than being scali proportionally, the sizes of the rods and cones, respectively, are nearly equivalent for both the human ar monkey resulting in an effectively finer retinal grain for the larger human eye. Furthermore, the human density exceeds the monkey rod density beyond about 1 deg of retinal eccentricity. These results suggest variation across primate species is reflected in retinal sampling strategies.

Keywords

Human and monkey retinal samplingPrimate photoreceptor mosaicSampling strategies

Information

Type
Short communication
Information
Visual Neuroscience , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , September 1989, pp. 281 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Curcio, C.A., Sloan, K.R., Packer, O., Hendrickson, A.E. & Kalina, R.E. (1987 a). Distribution of cones in human and monkey retina: individual variability and radial asymmetry. Science 236, 579–582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Curcio, C.A., Packer, O. & Kalina, R.E. (1987 b). A wholemount method for segmental analysis of photoreceptor and ganglion cell topography in a single retina. Vision Research 27, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curcio, C.A. (1987). Diameters of presumed cone apertures in human retina. Optical Society of America: Technical Digest 4, 70.Google Scholar
French, A.S., Snyder, A.W. & Stavenga, D.G. (1977). Image degradation by an irregular retinal mosaic. Biological Cybernetics 27, 229–233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geisler, W.S. & Hamilton, D.B. (1986). Sampling-theory analysis of spatial vision. Journal of the Optical Society of America 3, 62–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harwerth, R.S., Smith, E.L. III., Boltz, R.L., Crawford, M.L.J. & Von Noorden, G.K. (1983). Behavioral studies on the effect of abnormal early visual experience in monkeys: spatial modulation sensitivity. Vision Research 23, 1501–1510.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirsch, J. & Curcio, C.A. (1987). Sampling by the human retina predicts grating resolution within 2.0 deg. Optical Society of America: Technical Digest 4, 70.Google Scholar
Hirsch, J. & Curcio, C.A. (1989). The spatial resolution capacity of the human fovea. Vision Research (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, J. & Hylton, R. (1984). Quality of the primate photorecep-tor lattice and limits of spatial vision. Vision Research 24, 347–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirsch, J. & Miller, W.H. (1987). Does cone positional jitter limit near-foveal acuity? Journal of the Optical Society of America 4, 1481–1492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeGrand, Y. (1957). light, Colour, and Vision. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc., pp. 12–17.Google Scholar
Miller, W.H. (1979). Ocular optical filtering. In Handbook of Sensory Physiology, VII (6A), ed., Autrum, H., pp. 114–124. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Østerberg, G. (1935). Topography of the layer of rods and cones in the human Retina. Acta Ophthalmologica (Suppl.) 6, 1–103. Levin & Munksgaard Publishers, Nórrgade 6, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Perry, V.H. & Cowey, A. (1985). The ganglion cell and cone distributions in the monkey's retina: implications for central magnification factors. Vision Research 25, 1795–1810.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rolls, E.T. & Cowey, A. (1970). Topography of the retina and striate cortex and its relationship to visual acuity in Rhesus monkeys and Squirrel monkeys. Experimental Brain Research 10, 298–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schein, S. J. (1988). Anatomy of macaque fovea and spatial densities of neurons in foveal representation. Journal of Comparative Neurology 269, 479–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snyder, A.W. & Miller, W.H. (1977). Photoreceptor diameter and spacing for highest resolving power. Journal of the Optical Society of America 67, 696–698.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyler, C.W. (1985). Analysis of visual modulation sensitivity, II: Peripheral retina and the role of photoreceptor dimensions. Journal of the Optical Society of America 2, 393–398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiskrantz, L. & Cowey, A. (1963). Striate cortex lesions and visual acuity of the Rhesus monkey. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 56, 225–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westheimer, G. (1972). Handbook of Sensory Physiology, VII/11, ed. Fourtes, M.G.F., pp. 449–482. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Westheimer, G. (1982). The spatial grain of the perifoveal visual field. Vision Research 22, 157–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, D.R. (1988). Topography of the foveal cone mosaic in the living human eye. Vision Research 28, 433–453.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yellott, J.I. Jr., (1982). Spectral analysis of spatial sampling by photoreceptors: topological disorder prevents aliasing. Vision Research 22, 1205–1210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed