Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T04:22:02.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘OFF’ response of the human electroretinogram does not contribute to the brief flash ‘ b–wave’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2009

William Seiple and
Karen Holopigian
William Seiple
Affiliation:
Department of Ophthalmology, New York University Medical Center, New York
Karen Holopigian
Affiliation:
Department of Ophthalmology, New York University Medical Center, New York
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has been assumed that the ‘ON’ and ‘OFF’ responses of the human electroretinogram (ERG) interact to produce a single waveform when brief flashes are used. To test this assumption, we examined the separate effects of stimulus intensity, the level of retinal illuminance and stimulus duration on the ERG. Both ‘ON’ and ‘OFF’ response amplitude decreased as stimulus intensity was decreased and as the level of retinal illumination was reduced. When stimulus duration was reduced, the amplitude of the ‘OFF’ response decreased; however, the amplitude of the ‘ON’ response increased. Summing of the ‘ON’ and ‘OFF’ response waveforms could not account for the increased amplitude in response to brief stimuli or for the changes in ERG wave shape. These results indicate that there is not a significant corneally recordable ‘OFF’ response elicited by brief stimuli, such as those commonly used to record the flash ERG.

Keywords

ElectroretinogramOFF response

Information

Type
Research Articles
Information
Visual Neuroscience , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , July 1994, pp. 667 - 673
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Alexander, K.R., Fishman, G.A., Peachey, N.S., Marchese, A.L. & Tso, M.O.M. (1992). ‘On’ response defect in paraneoplastic night blindness with cutaneous malignant melanoma. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 33, 477–483.Google ScholarPubMed
Alpern, M. & Faris, J.J. (1956). Luminance-duration relationship in the electrical response of the human retina. Journal of the Optical Society of America 46, 845–850.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Best, W. & Bohnen, K. (1955). Über den off-effekt im elektroretino-gram des menschen. Albrecht von Graefes Archives Ophthalmology 158, 568–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biersdorp, W.R. (1958). Luminance-duration relationship in the light adapted electroretinogram. Journal of the Optical Society of America 46, 412–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biersdorf, W.R. (1968). Rod and cone contributions to the off-effect of the human ERG. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 7, 371–377.Google Scholar
Evers, H.U. & Gouras, P. (1986). Three cone mechanism in the primate electroretinogram: Two with, one without off-center bipolar responses. Vision Research 26, 245–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fishman, G.A. & Sokol, S. (1990). Electrophysiological Testing in Disorders of the Retina, Optic Nerve, and Visual Pathways. San Francisco, California: American Academy of Ophthalmology.Google Scholar
Heck, J. (1957). Der off-effekt im menschlichen elektroretinogram. Acta Physiologica Scandinavia 40, 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howarth, C.I. (1961). On-off interaction in the human electroretinogram. Journal of the Optical Society of America 51, 345–352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, E.P. & Bartlett, N.R. (1956). Effect of stimulus duration on electrical responses of the human retina. Journal of the Optical Society of America 46, 167–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miyake, Y., Yagasaki, K., Horiguchi, M. & Kawase, Y. (1987). On-and off-responses in photopic electroretinogram in complete and incomplete types of congenital stationary night blindness. Japanese Journal Ophthalmology 31, 81–87.Google ScholarPubMed
Nagata, M. (1963). Studies on the photopic ERG of the human retina. Japanese Journal Ophthalmology 7, 96–124.Google Scholar
Shapely, R.M. & Enroth-Cugell, C. (1984). Visual adaptation and retinal gain controls. Progress in Retinal Research 3, 263–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skoog, K.O., Welinder, E. & Nilsson, S.E.G. (1977). Off-responses in the human DC registered electroretinogram. Vision Research 17, 409–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tscuhtda, Y., Kawasaki, K. & Jacobson, J.H. (1971). Rhythmic wavelets of the positive off-effect in the human electroretinogram. American Journal of Ophthalmology 72, 60–69.Google Scholar
Walters, J.W., Smith, E.L. & Manny, R.E. (1981). ERG off-effects produced by short duration stimuli. American Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics 58, 792–796.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, R.S.L. (1991). Low-frequency component of the photopic ERG in patients with X-linked congenital stationary night blindness. Clinical Vision Sciences 6, 309–315.Google Scholar