Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-pztms Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-28T13:32:27.882Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Electroretinographic responses to periodic stimuli in primates and the relevance for visual perception and for clinical studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2024

Jan Kremers*
Affiliation:
Section for Retinal Physiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
Cord Huchzermeyer
Affiliation:
Section for Retinal Physiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
*
Corresponding author: Jan Kremers; Email: Jan.kremers@uk-erlangen.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Currently, electroretinograms (ERGs) are mainly recorded while using flashes as stimuli. In this review, we will argue that strong flashes are not ideal for studying visual information processing. ERG responses to periodic stimuli may be more strongly associated with the activity of post-receptoral neurons (belonging to different retino-geniculate pathways) and, therefore, be more relevant for visual perception. We will also argue that the use of periodic stimuli may be an attractive addition to clinically available retinal electrophysiological methods.

Information

Type
Review Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Examples of flash ERGs measured with normal healthy subject. The left trace is the response to a 3 cd.s/m2 flash in a dark-adapted (scotopic) state (DA3). On the right, the response to a 3 cd.s/m2 flash is shown during light adaptation (LA3; photopic). The different components are shown. For more details see Frishman et al. (2018) and Robson et al. (2022).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Results from local intraretinal ERG recordings at different wavelengths in cynomolgus monkeys. The plots show sensitivities (defined as the inverse of the stimulus strength for a threshold response amplitude) as a function of stimulus wavelength. The upper plot (closed symbols) shows the sensitivities of an initial peak in the response. This curve shows similarities with the Vλ. The lower plot (open symbols) shows the sensitivities of the b-wave. The b-wave sensitivity displays notches at about 500 and 560 nm, suggesting that the b-wave sensitivity is at least partially determined by cone opponent processes. The two plots were shifted along the vertical axis for clarity. Data are redrawn from van Norren and Baron (1977).

Figure 2

Figure 3. Mean psychophysically measured spectral sensitivity for incremental flashes in a rhesus monkey. Observe the same three peaks and the notches at about 490 and 560 nm similar as in the ERG amplitudes shown in the lower graph of Fig. 2. Data redrawn from Sperling and Harwerth (1971).

Figure 3

Figure 4. Amplitudes of the fundamental (closed circles) and second harmonic (open circles) components of observers’ responses to luminance sine-wave stimuli with 100% Michelson contrast. The fundamental component shows a minimum of about 12 Hz. The second harmonic displays a maximum at this frequency. Replotted from Pangeni et al. (2010).

Figure 4

Figure 5. A description of the heterochromatic flicker photometry paradigm. Two differently colored stimuli are modulated in counterphase at equal contrast (mostly 100% as depicted in the figure). The mean luminance of the reference stimulus (green in this case) is kept constant whereas the mean luminance of the test stimulus (red in the present case) is varied. The luminance modulation is zero when the two stimuli have equal mean luminances.

Figure 5

Figure 6. Description of the HMP procedure. Left column: Luminance of the red (Lumred) and green (Lumgreen) LEDs (arbitrary values in cd/m2) for six different conditions in which the fraction (FR) is varied. FR is defined as the fraction of red contrast (R) over total contrast (R + G): FR = R/(R + G). In our experiments, the total contrast was 100%. Middle column: Luminance modulation elicited by the stimuli (defined as Lumgreen + Lumred). The luminance modulation depth (and thus luminance contrast) depends on stimulus conditions. Luminance contrast is 0% when FR = 0.5. At this minimum the phase of the luminance modulation shifts by 180°; when FR < 0.5 the luminance follows the output of the green LED; when FR > 0.5 the luminance follows the output of the red LED. Right column: Chromatic modulation (defined as Lumgreen-Lumred) for the different conditions. Neither contrast nor phase of the chromatic modulation changes with FR.

Figure 6

Figure 7. Results of psychophysical measurements with a trichromatic subject. The psychophysical sensitivity (inverse of the contrast at detection threshold) given as a function of the fraction of red contrast relative to the total contrast (FR) in the stimulus. The measurements were performed at two temporal frequencies. At 2 Hz (open inverted triangles), the sensitivities are similar for all values of FR, whereas the sensitivity shows a clear minimum at 20 Hz (closed circles). (Aher, Kremers, Huchzermeyer, unpublished data).

Figure 7

Figure 8. Amplitudes (upper plots) and phases (lower plots) of the fundamental components in the ERG responses measured in a trichromatic subject to HMP stimuli (as sketched in Fig. 6) as a function of the FR. The responses to 36 Hz stimuli (left plots) show a clear amplitude minimum (similar to the 20 Hz psychophysical sensitivities shown in Fig. 7). At the minimum, the response phases change by 180 degrees. The 12 Hz response amplitudes and phases (right plots) do not change strongly with FR. This was also observed in the 2 Hz psychophysics (see Fig. 7) and can be expected when the responses (and the psychophysical sensitivities) reflect cone opponent activity. Data from Kremers et al. (2010).

Figure 8

Figure 9. Sketch of a heterochromatic stimulus where the luminances of the red and green LEDs are alternately modulated according to raised cosine functions. The luminance modulates at approximately twice the temporal frequency of the chromatic modulation.

Figure 9

Figure 10. (A) Sketch of an alternating red-green stimulus with 6 Hz chromatic and 12 Hz luminance frequency. The original responses from a trichromat (subject 2) are shown in the lower part of (A). Observe that the response to the red and green LEDs differ showing that there is a substantial response to the chromaticity of the stimulus. (B) The stimulus plus responses in subject 2 for a 16 Hz chromatic; 32 Hz luminance stimulus. The responses to the red and green LEDs are very similar, indicating that the response is mainly determined by the luminance modulation. (C) Amplitudes of the response component at the chromatic stimulus frequency as a function of the component’s frequency for four different trichromatic subjects. (D) Response amplitudes of the component at the luminance frequency of the stimulus. Data redrawn from Parry et al. (2012).

Figure 10

Figure 11. Sketch of the silent substitution method considering four primaries and four photoreceptor types (rods and three cone types). From the photoreceptor fundamentals and the emission spectra of the light sources (in this case narrow band LEDs with interference filters), the sensitivity of each photoreceptor to each LED is calculated. The luminance modulation in each LED (upper left plots) is chosen such that the sum of the photoreceptor excitations elicited by the four LEDs (upper right plots) is modulated in only photoreceptor type (in this case the S-cones). The sum of the excitations in the other photoreceptor types is not modulated (i.e., resulting in a triple silent substitution).

Figure 11

Figure 12. Upper left: ERG responsivity to L- and M-cone isolating sine wave stimuli versus temporal frequency. Responsivity is defined as the response amplitude divided by the used cone contrast, enabling a comparison between conditions with different contrasts. In the current case, the difference is very small (18% M-cone contrast vs. 19% L-cone contrast). Upper right: The ratio of L- and M-cone driven responsivities as a function of temporal frequency. The ratio is close to one at low frequencies and increases with temporal frequency and can be as large as 10:1. Lower left plot: The phases of L- and M-cone driven ERGs versus temporal frequency. Lower right plot: Phase difference between M- and L-cone driven responses as a function of temporal frequency. The difference is close to 180 degrees at low temporal frequencies (suggesting cone opponency) and decreases with increasing frequency. Redrawn from Kremers and Pangeni (2012).

Figure 12

Figure 13. ERG responses to L- and M-cone isolating sawtooth stimuli. The upper curves show original responses to L-cone isolating stimuli in a trichromatic subject (Left: response to rapid increases of L-cone excitation; right: response to rapid decreases of L-cone excitation). The lower curves show the responses to M-cone isolating stimuli (Left: response to rapid M-cone excitation decreases; right: response to rapid M-cone excitation increases). Please observe that the L-On and the M-Off responses resemble each other. Similarly, the L-Off and the M-On responses show strong similarities. Adapted from Kremers et al. (2014).

Figure 13

Figure 14. Results of ERG measurements in macaque monkeys using L- and M-cone isolating white noise stimuli. The upper two rows show the excitation of the M-cones as a function of time within a 512 msec cycle. These cycles were presented repetitively. The excitations of only the L-cones (upper row) or only the M-cones (second row) were modulated according to a white noise profile. The excitations in the other photoreceptors were constant (i.e., their output was not modulated). Third row: the cross-correlation between stimulus and ERG response resulted in the L- (left) and M-cone (right) driven impulse response functions (IRF). Observe the fundamental differences between the two. Fourth and fifth rows: The Fourier transform of the IRFs resulted in the modulation transfer functions (MTFs) with separate plots for amplitude (fourth row) and phase (fifth row) for L- (left) and M-cone (middle) driven responses. The L−/M-amplitude ratio (fourth-row right plot) and the L-M phase differences (fifth-row right plot) were derived.