Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of photopic negative response (PhNR) between focal macular and full-field electroretinograms in monkeys

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the characteristics of the photopic negative response (PhNR) between the focal macular and full-field electroretinograms (ERGs) in monkeys.

Methods

Both focal macular and full-field photopic ERGs were recorded in four cynomolgus monkeys under identical stimulus and recording conditions except for which area of the retina was illuminated. The luminance and duration of red flash stimuli were varied in the presence of steady blue background illumination. These ERGs were recorded before and after intravitreal injection of tetrodotoxin (TTX).

Results

Several differences were identified between the focal macular and full-field ERGs, including: (1) The PhNR/b-wave amplitude ratio was higher in the focal macular than in the full-field ERGs, and (2) the stimulus threshold of the focal macular PhNR was lower than that of the full-field PhNR. For both macular and full-field stimulation conditions, (1) PhNR amplitude generally increased with increasing stimulus luminance; (2) PhNR implicit time was independent of the stimulus luminance; (3) PhNR amplitude and implicit time increased with increasing stimulus duration up to 50 ms, while a further increase in stimulus duration produced no change in amplitude or implicit time; and (4) PhNR amplitude was selectively attenuated by TTX.

Conclusions

Both the focal macular and full-field PhNRs reflect the functional properties of the inner retina including the retinal ganglion cells (RGCs). Relative to the b-wave, the contribution is weighted more heavily in the focal macular than in the full-field PhNR. Furthermore, these results support the idea that the focal macular PhNR can be an indicator of the function of the macular RGCs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Viswanathan S, Frishman LJ, Robson JG, Harwerth RS, Smith EL III (1999) The photopic negative response of the macaque electroretinogram: reduction by experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 40(6):1124–1136

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Viswanathan S, Frishman LJ, Robson JG, Walters JW (2001) The photopic negative response of the flash electroretinogram in primary open angle glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42(2):514–522

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gotoh Y, Machida S, Tazawa Y (2004) Selective loss of the photopic negative response in patients with optic nerve atrophy. Arch Ophthalmol 122(3):341–346. doi:10.1001/archopht.122.3.341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rangaswamy NV, Frishman LJ, Dorotheo EU, Schiffman JS, Bahrani HM, Tang RA (2004) Photopic ERGs in patients with optic neuropathies: comparison with primate ERGs after pharmacologic blockade of inner retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45(10):3827–3837. doi:10.1167/iovs.04-0458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Moon CH, Hwang SC, Kim BT, Ohn YH, Park TK (2011) Visual prognostic value of optical coherence tomography and photopic negative response in chiasmal compression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52(11):8527–8533. doi:10.1167/iovs.11-8034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang J, Cheng H, Hu YS, Tang RA, Frishman LJ (2012) The photopic negative response of the flash electroretinogram in multiple sclerosis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53(3):1315–1323. doi:10.1167/iovs.11-8461

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Machida S, Gotoh Y, Toba Y, Ohtaki A, Kaneko M, Kurosaka D (2008) Correlation between photopic negative response and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness and optic disc topography in glaucomatous eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49(5):2201–2207. doi:10.1167/iovs.07-0887

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tamada K, Machida S, Yokoyama D, Kurosaka D (2009) Photopic negative response of full-field and focal macular electroretinograms in patients with optic nerve atrophy. Jpn J Ophthalmol 53(6):608–614. doi:10.1007/s10384-009-0731-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Machida S, Tamada K, Oikawa T, Gotoh Y, Nishimura T, Kaneko M, Kurosaka D (2011) Comparison of photopic negative response of full-field and focal electroretinograms in detecting glaucomatous eyes. J Ophthalmol. doi:10.1155/2011/564131

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Kondo M, Kurimoto Y, Sakai T, Koyasu T, Miyata K, Ueno S, Terasaki H (2008) Recording focal macular photopic negative response (PhNR) from monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49(8):3544–3550. doi:10.1167/iovs.08-1798

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rangaswamy NV, Shirato S, Kaneko M, Digby BI, Robson JG, Frishman LJ (2007) Effects of spectral characteristics of Ganzfeld stimuli on the photopic negative response (PhNR) of the ERG. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48(10):4818–4828. doi:10.1167/iovs.07-0218

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Fortune B, Bui BV, Cull G, Wang L, Cioffi GA (2004) Inter-ocular and inter-session reliability of the electroretinogram photopic negative response (PhNR) in non-human primates. Exp Eye Res 78(1):83–93

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nakamura H, Hangai M, Mori S, Hirose F, Yoshimura N (2011) Hemispherical focal macular photopic negative response and macular inner retinal thickness in open-angle glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 151(3):494–506. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2010.09.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Machida S, Kaneko M, Kurosaka D (2015) Regional variations in correlation between photopic negative response of focal electroretinograms and ganglion cell complex in glaucoma. Curr Eye Res 40(4):439–449. doi:10.3109/02713683.2014.922196

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hille B (1966) Common mode of action of three agents that decrease the transient change in sodium permeability in nerves. Nature 210(5042):1220–1222

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bloomfield SA (1996) Effect of spike blockade on the receptive-field size of amacrine and ganglion cells in the rabbit retina. J Neurophysiol 75(5):1878–1893

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Stone J, Johnston E (1981) The topography of primate retina: a study of the human, bushbaby, and new- and old-world monkeys. J Comp Neurol 196(2):205–223. doi:10.1002/cne.901960204

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Perry VH, Cowey A (1985) The ganglion cell and cone distributions in the monkey’s retina: implications for central magnification factors. Vis Res 25(12):1795–1810

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Curcio CA, Sloan KR Jr, Packer O, Hendrickson AE, Kalina RE (1987) Distribution of cones in human and monkey retina: individual variability and radial asymmetry. Science 236(4801):579–582

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kaneko M, Machida S, Hoshi Y, Kurosaka D (2015) Alterations of photopic negative response of multifocal electroretinogram in patients with glaucoma. Curr Eye Res 40(1):77–86. doi:10.3109/02713683.2014.915575

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sieving PA, Murayama K, Naarendorp F (1994) Push-pull model of the primate photopic electroretinogram: a role for hyperpolarizing neurons in shaping the b-wave. Vis Neurosci 11(3):519–532

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Hidetaka Kudo of Mayo Corporation for technical assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medicinal Safety Research Laboratories, Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., 1-16-13 Kitakasai, Edogawa-ku, Tokyo, 134-8630, Japan

    Junzo Kinoshita, Shunsuke Takada, Noriaki Iwata & Yoshiro Tani

Authors
  1. Junzo Kinoshita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shunsuke Takada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Noriaki Iwata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yoshiro Tani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Junzo Kinoshita.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Human and animal rights

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kinoshita, J., Takada, S., Iwata, N. et al. Comparison of photopic negative response (PhNR) between focal macular and full-field electroretinograms in monkeys. Doc Ophthalmol 132, 177–187 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-016-9538-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-016-9538-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation