Documenta Ophthalmologica

, Volume 124, Issue 2, pp 79–90 | Cite as

Spectral characteristics of the PhNR in the full-field flash electroretinogram of normals and glaucoma patients

  • Jan KremersEmail author
  • Mounira Jertila
  • Barbara Link
  • Gobinda Pangeni
  • Folkert K. Horn
Original Research Article


Flash electroretinogram responses were measured in normal subjects to different chromatic combinations of flashes and backgrounds. The amplitudes of the flash response components were measured at different flash strengths and could be described by a generalized Naka-Rushton function. The measurements were repeated at different background luminances to study adaptation effects. It was found that when flash strength and background luminance were expressed in photometric terms (cd s/m² and cd/m², respectively), then the responses were very similar for all chromatic combinations with the exception of the condition in which blue (peak wavelength 458 nm) was flashed upon an orange (peak wavelength 591 nm) background. We propose that in this condition, a second (possibly S-cone or rod-driven) mechanism intrudes. The negative response after the b-wave (here called “photopic negative response” or PhNR for all conditions) is thought to reflect ganglion cell activity and was also largest at this condition. Responses were measured to the 458 nm flash on 591 nm background and the reversed combination in a population of 39 normal subjects and 49 glaucoma patients. It was found that the PhNR amplitude was affected by glaucoma in all conditions. Other component parameters, reflecting responses and adaptation dynamics, were not altered. The best stimulus condition among the conditions used to separate the PhNR amplitude of normals and patients was a 1 cd s/m² 458 nm flash on a 10 cd/m² 591 nm background.


Electroretinogram Spectral composition Flash stimuli Photopic negative response 



The work was supported by German Research Council (DFG) grant KR 1317/9-1. JK is Fellow in the Excellence Program of the Hertie Foundation. The authors like to thank Anja Ehrhardt and Sylvia Rühl for technical support and Prof. Kruse for general support.

Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Frishman LJ (2006) Origins of the electroretinogram. In: Heckenlively JR, Arden GB (eds) Principles and practice of clinical electrophysiology of vision. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 139–183Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Viswanathan S, Frishman LJ, Robson JG (2000) The uniform field and pattern ERG in macaques with experimental glaucoma: removal of spiking activity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:2797–2810PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Viswanathan S, Frishman LJ, Robson JG, Harwerth RS, Smith Iii EL (1999) The photopic negative response of the macaque electroretinogram: reduction by experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 40:1124–1136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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 42:514–522PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rangaswamy NV, Digby B, Harwerth RS, Frishman LJ (2005) Optimizing the spectral characteristics of a Ganzfeld stimulus used for eliciting the photopic negative response (PhNR). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci (Supplement) 46:#4762Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 48:4818–4828PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sustar M, Cvenkel B, Brecelj J (2009) The effect of broadband and monochromatic stimuli on the photopic negative response of the electroretinogram in normal subjects and in open-angle glaucoma patients. Documenta Ophthalmologica 118:167–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jertila MJ, Horn FK, Lämmer R, Jünemann AG, Kremers J (2007) Spectral characteristics of the human full-field electroretinogram. ARVO, pp #2899Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jonas JB, Gusek GC, Naumann GO (1988) Optic disc morphometry in chronic primary open-angle glaucoma. I. Morphometric intrapapillary characteristics. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 226:522–530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wyszecki G, Stiles WS (1982) Color science. Concepts and methods, quantitative data and formulae. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Binns AM, Mortlock KE, North RV (2011) The relationship between stimulus intensity and response amplitude for the photopic negative response of the flash electroretinogram. Doc Ophthalmol 122:39–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wali N, Leguire LE (1992) The photopic hill: a new phenomenon of the light adapted electroretinogram. Doc Ophthalmol 80:335–345PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rufiange M, Dassa J, Dembinska O, Koenekoop RK, Little JM, Polomeno RC, Dumont M, Chemtob S, Lachapelle P (2003) The photopic ERG luminance-response function (photopic hill): method of analysis and clinical application. Vis Res 43:1405–1412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rufiange M, Dumont M, Lachapelle P (2005) Modulation of the human photopic ERG luminance-response function with the use of chromatic stimuli. Vis Res 45:2321–2330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sperling HG, Harwerth RS (1971) Red-green cone interaction in the increment-threshold spectral sensitivity of primates. Science 172:180–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kasuga T (2001) Effect of glutamate analogues on red-green opponent interaction in monkey electroretinograms. Exp Eye Res 73:311–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wakili N, Horn FK, Jünemann AG, Nguyen NX, Mardin CY, Korth M, Kremers J (2008) The photopic negative response of the blue-on-yellow flash-electroretinogram in glaucomas and normal subjects. Documenta OphthalmologicaGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hamilton R, Bees MA, Chaplin CA, McCulloch DL (2007) The luminance-response function of the human photopic electroretinogram: a mathematical model. Vis Res 47:2968–2972PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Valeton JM, Dv Norren (1983) Light adaptation in primate cones: an analysis based on extracellular data. Vis Res 23:1539–1547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vergara IA, Norambuena T, Ferrada E, Slater AW, Melo F (2008) StAR: a simple tool for the statistical comparison of ROC curves. BMC Bioinform 9:265CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Kremers
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mounira Jertila
    • 1
    • 2
  • Barbara Link
    • 1
  • Gobinda Pangeni
    • 1
  • Folkert K. Horn
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyUniversity Hospital ErlangenErlangenGermany
  2. 2.Klinik und Poliklinik für Augenheilkunde, Klinikum rechts der IsarTechnical University MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations