Scaling the hill of vision: The physiological relationship between light sensitivity and ganglion cell numbers

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 41, Issue 7, 2000, Pages 1774-1782

  Garway Heath, David F ^a,b   Caprioli, Joseph ^b   Fitzke, Fred W ^c   Hitchings, Roger A ^a  

^a MOORFIELDS EYE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b JULES STEIN EYE INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CELL COUNT; CELL DENSITY; CELL LOSS; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NERVE CELL LESION; NORMAL HUMAN; PERIMETRY; PHOTOSENSITIVITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEPTIVE FIELD; RETINA GANGLION CELL; VISION; VISUAL FIELD;

ADULT; CELL COUNT; HUMANS; LIGHT; PERIMETRY; PHOTOTRANSDUCTION; RETINAL GANGLION CELLS; VISION; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 0034042740     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Asman P, Heijl A, Olsson J, Rootzen H. Spatial analyses of glaucomatous visual fields; a comparison with traditional visual field indices. Acta Ophthalmol Copenh. 1992;70:679-686.
2. Gaasterland DE, Ederer F. Sullivan EK, Caprioli J, Cyrlin MN. Advanced glaucoma intervention study, 2: visual field test scoring and reliability. Ophthalmology. 1994;101:1445-1455.
3. Quigley HA, Addicks EM. Regional differences in the structure of the lamina cribrosa and their relation to glaucomatous optic nerve damage. Arch Ophthalmol. 1981;99:137-143.
4. Caprioli J, Sears M, Miller JM. Patterns of early visual field loss in open-angle glaucoma [published erratum appears in Am J Ophthalmol. 1987;104:98]. Am J Ophthalmol. 1987;103:512-517.
5. Heijl A, Lundqvist L. The frequency distribution of earliest glaucomatous visual field defects documented by automatic perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol Copenh. 1984;62:658-664.
6. Emdadi A, Zangwill L, Sample PA, et al. Patterns of optic disk damage in patients with early focal visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;126:763-771.
7. Viswanathan AC, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Early detection of visual field progression in glaucoma: a comparison of PROGRESSOR and STATPAC 2 [see comments]. Br J Ophthalmol. 1997;81:1037-1042.
8. Wild JM, Hutchings N, Hussey MK, Flanagan JG, Trope GE. Pointwise univariate linear regression of perimetric sensitivity against follow-up time in glaucoma [see comments]. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:808-815.
9. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Brigatti L, Weitzman M, Caprioli J. Comparison of methods to detect visual field progression in glaucoma [published erratum appears in Ophthalmology. 1998;105:7]. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:1228-1236.
10. Quigley HA. Addicks EM, Green WR. Optic nerve damage in human glaucoma, III: quantitative correlation of nerve fiber loss and visual field defect in glaucoma, ischemic neuropathy, papilledema, and toxic neuropathy. Arch Ophthalmol. 1982;100:135-146.
11. Kendell KR, Quigley HA, Kerrigan LA, Pease ME, Quigley EN. Primary open-angle glaucoma is not associated with photoreceptor loss. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1995;36:200-205.
12. Yucel YH, Gupta N, Kalichman MW, et al. Relationship of optic disc topography to optic nerve fiber number in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116:493-497.
13. Airaksinen PJ, Drance SM Neuroretinal rim area and retinal nerve fiber layer in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1985;103:203-204.
14. Jonas JB, Grundler AE. Correlation between mean visual field loss and morphometric optic disk variables in the open-angle glaucomas. Am J Ophthalmol. 1997;124:488-497.
15. Harwerth RS, Carter-Dawson L, Shen F, Smith EL 3rd, Crawford ML. Ganglion cell losses underlying visual field defects from experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:2242-2250.
16. Quigley HA, Dunkelberger GR, Green WR. Retinal ganglion cell atrophy correlated with automated perimetry in human eyes with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1989;107:453-464.
17. Glezer VD. The receptive fields of the retina Vision Res. 1965;5: 497-525.
18. Wilson ME. Invariant features of spatial summation with changing locus in the visual field. J Physiol. 1970;207:611-622.
19. Matin L. Ricco's law: response as a power function of stimulus luminance and distance from target center. Vision Res. 1975;15: 1381-1384.
20. Scholtes AM, Bouman MA. Psychophysical experiments on spatial summation at threshold level of the human peripheral retina. Vision Res. 1977;17:867-873.
21. Sloan LL. Area and luminance of test object as variables in examination of the visual field by projection perimetry. Vision Res. 1961;1:121-138.
22. Dannheim F, Drance SM. Studies of spatial summation of central retinal areas in normal people of all ages. Can J Ophthalmol. 1971;6:311-319.
23. Kasai N, Takahashi G, Koyama N, Kitahara K An analysis of spatial summation using a Humphrey field analyzer. In: Mills RP, ed. Xth International Perimetric Society Meeting. Kyoto, Japan: Kugler Publications; 1992:557-562.
24. Curcio CA, Allen KA. Topography of ganglion cells in human retina. J Comp Neurol. 1990;300:5-25.
25. Schein SJ. Anatomy of macaque fovea and spatial densities of neurons in foveal representation. J Comp Neurol. 1988;269:479-505.
26. Wassle H, Grunert U, Rohrenbeck J, Boycott BB. Retinal ganglion cell density and cortical magnification factor in the primate. Vision Res. 1990;30:1897-1911.
27. Sjostrand J, Conradi N, Klaren L. How many ganglion cells are there to a foveal cone? A stereologic analysis of the quantitative relationship between cone and ganglion cells in one normal human fovea. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1994;232:432-437.
28. Garway-Heath DF, Rudnicka AR, Lowe T, et al. Measurement of optic disc size: equivalence of methods to correct for ocular magnification. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998;82:643-649.
29. Holden AL, Fitzke FW. Image size in the fundus: structural evidence for wide-field retinal magnification factor. Br J Ophthalmol. 1988;72:228-230.
30. Bennett AG, Rudnicka AR, Edgar DF. Improvements on Littmann's method of determining the size of retinal features by fundus photography. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1994;232:361-367.
31. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field. Arch Ophthalmol. 1987;105:1544-1549.
32. Frisen L. Acuity perimetry: estimation of neural channels. Int Ophthalmol. 1988;12:169-174.
33. Bartz Schmidt KU, Weber J. Comparison of spatial thresholds and intensity thresholds in glaucoma. Int Ophthalmol. 1993;17:171-178.
34. Chauhan BC, LeBlanc RP, McCormick TA, Rogers JB. Comparison of high-pass resolution perimetry and pattern discrimination perimetry to conventional perimetry in glaucoma. Can J Ophthalmol. 1993;28:306-311.
35. Gougnard L. Etudes des sommations spatiales chez le sujet normal par la perimetrie statique. Ophthalmologica. 1961;142: 469-486.
36. Wood JM, Wild JM, Drasdo N, Crews SJ. Perimetric profiles and cortical representation Ophthalmic Res. 1986;18:301-308.
37. Wang YZ, Thibos LN, Bradley A. Effects of refractive error on detection acuity and resolution acuity in peripheral vision. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38:2134-2143.
38. Fellmann RL, Lynn JR, Starita RJ, Swanson WH. Clinical importance of spatial summation in glaucoma. In: Heijl A, ed. VIII International Perimetric Society Meeting Amsterdam: Kugler & Ghedini Publications; 1988:313-324.
39. Dannheim F, Drance SM. Psychovisual disturbances in glaucoma: a study of temporal and spatial summation. Arch Ophthalmol. 1974; 91:463-468.
40. Herse PR. Factors influencing normal perimetric thresholds obtained using the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1992;33:611-617.