Current-source density analysis of the electroretinogram of the frog: Methodological issues and origin of components

Journal of the Optical Society of America A: Optics and Image Science, and Vision

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 549-556

  Karwoski, Chester J ^a   Xu, Xijing ^a   Yu, Huaiyuan ^a  

^a University of Georgia ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; ELECTRIC CONDUCTIVITY; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; ELECTRORETINOGRAPHY; FROG; IMPEDANCE; METHODOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; RETINA;

ANIMALS; ELECTRIC CONDUCTIVITY; ELECTRIC IMPEDANCE; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; ELECTRORETINOGRAPHY; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; RANA PIPIENS; RETINA;

EID: 0030095336     PISSN: 10847529     EISSN: 15208532     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1364/JOSAA.13.000549     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. C. J. Karwoski, “Introduction to the origins of electro-retinographic components,” in Principles and Practice of Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision, J. R. Heckenlively and G. B. Arden, eds. (Mosby-Year Book, St. Louis, Mo., 1991), Chap. 8, pp. 87–90.
2. J. I. Hubbard, R. Llinas, and D. M. J. Quastel, Electro-physiological Analysis of Synaptic Transmission (Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, Md., 1969), Chap. 7, pp. 265–294.
3. B. Howland, J. Y. Lettvin, W. S. McCulloch, W. Pitts, and P. D. Wall, “Reflex inhibition by dorsal root interaction,” J. Neurophysiol. 18, 1–17 (1955).
4. J. A. Freeman and J. Stone, “A technique for current density analysis of field potentials and its application to the frog cerebellum,” in Neurobiology of Cerebellar Evolution and Development, R. Llinas, ed. (American Medical Association, Chicago, Ill., 1969), pp. 421–430.
5. L. B. Haberly and G. M. Shepherd, “Current-density analysis of summed evoked potentials in opossum prepyriform cortex,” J. Neurophysiol. 36, 789–803 (1973).
6. J. A. Freeman and C. Nicholson, “Experimental optimization of current source-density technique for anuran cerebellum,” J. Neurophysiol. 38, 369–382 (1975).
7. C. Nicholson and J. A. Freeman, “Theory of current source-density analysis and determination of conductivity tensor for anuran cerebellum,” J. Neurophysiol. 38, 356–368 (1975).
8. X. Xu and C. J. Karwoski, “Current source density (CSD) analysis of retinal field potentials: I. Methodological con siderations and depth profiles,” J. Neurophysiol. 72, 84–95 (1994).
9. R. Lorente de No, “Transmission of impulses through cranial motor nuclei,” J. Neurophysiol. 2, 402–464 (1939).
10. X. Xu and C. J. Karwoski, “Current source density analysis of retinal field potentials: II. Pharmacological analysis of the b-wave and M-wave,” J. Neurophysiol. 72, 96–105 (1994).
11. X. Xu and C. J. Karwoski, “Current source density analysis of the electroretinographic d-wave,” J. Neurophysiol. 73, 2459–2469 (1995).
12. C. Nicholson and R. Llinas, “Real time current-source density analysis using multi-electrode array in cat cerebellum,” Brain Res. 100, 418–424 (1975).
13. H. Heynen and D. Van Norren, “Origin of the electroretino-gram in the intact macaque eye: II. Current source density analysis,” Vision Res. 25, 709–715 (1985).
14. B. Huang and C. J. Karwoski, “Light-evoked expansion of subretinal space volume in the retina of the frog,” J. Neurosci. 12, 4243–4252 (1992).
15. J.-D. Li, V. I. Govardovskii, and R. H. Steinberg, “Light-dependent hydration of the space surrounding photoreceptors in the cat retina,” Vis. Neurosci. 11,743-752 (1994).
16. H. Shimazaki, C. J. Karwoski, and L. M. Proenza, “Aspartate-induced dissociation of proximal from distal retinal activity in the mudpuppy,” Vision Res. 24, 587–595 (1984).
17. X. Xu, J. Xu, B. Huang, C. T. Livsey, and C. J. Karwoski, “Comparison of pharmacological agents (aspartate vs. ami-nophosphonobutyric plus kynurenic acids) to block synaptic transmission from retina photoreceptors in frog,” Exp. Eye Res. 52, 691–698 (1991).
18. H. Yu and C. J. Karwoski, “Current flow and resistivities in frog eyecup,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. Suppl. 35, 2047 (1994).
19. T. E. Ogden and H. Ito, “Avian retina. II. An evaluation of retinal electrical anisotropy,” J. Neurophysiol. 34, 367–373 (1971).
20. C. J. Karwoski, D. A. Frambach, L. M. Proenza, “Laminar profile of resistivity in frog retina,” J. Neurophysiol. 54, 1607–1619 (1985).
21. Y. C. Okada, J.-C. Huang, M. E. Rice, D. Tranchina, and C. Nicholson, “Origin of the apparent tissue conductivity in the molecular and granular layers of the in vitro turtle cerebellum and the interpretation of current source-density analysis,” J. Neurophysiol. 72, 742–753 (1994).
22. C. J. Karwoski, J. A. Coles, H.-K. Lu, and B. Huang, “Current-evoked transcellular K+ flux in frog retina,” J. Neurophysiol. 61, 939–952 (1989).
23. E. A. Newman, “Potassium conductance block by barium in amphibian Muller cells,” Brain Res. 498, 308–314 (1989).
24. C. J. Karwoski, H.-K. Lu, and E. A. Newman, “Spatial buffering of light-evoked potassium increases by retinal Muller (glial) cells,” Science 244, 578–580 (1989).
25. D. S. Faber, “Analysis of the slow trans-retinal potentials in response to light,” Ph.D. dissertation (State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, N.Y., 1969).
26. E. R. Griff, “Electroretinographic components arising in the distal retina,” in Principles and Practice of Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision, J. R. Heckenlively and G. B. Arden, eds. (Mosby-Year Book, St. Louis, Mo., 1991), Chap. 9, pp. 91–98.