The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cat cones have rod input: A comparison of the response properties of cones and horizontal cell bodies in the retina of the cat
Abstract
The responses of horizontal cell bodies and cones in the retina of the cat have been studied by means of intracellular recording and Procion dye injection In an isolated, arterially perfused eyecup preparation. Comparison of the hyperpolarizing responses of these units to red and blue stimuli of different intensities indicated that all morphological varieties of horizontal cells and, additionally, cones themselves, had mixed rod and cone input. The rod input into horizontal cell bodies is thus explained on the basis of cone physiology. The half‐saturating intensity of 441 nm stimuli for the rod input into cones and horizontal cells was about 400 quanta/μm 2/sec and about 160,000 quanta/μm 2/sec for the cone input. Little of this difference can be related to the different quantum catching abilities of rods and cones. The spatial properties of horizontal cell bodies and cones have been characterized using stimuli consisting of long slits in conjunction with a continuous cable model. Space constants for horizontal cells ranged from 210 μm to 410pm, whereas those for cones ranged from 50μm, or possibly less, to 180 μm. It is argued that horizontal cell bodies of the cat retina form electrical networks, and that the sizes of the receptive fields generated in these networks may be limited by the diameters of the primary and secondary dendrites of horizontal cells. The rod and cone fields of horizontal cell bodies were found to be nearly coextensive in space, arguing against the notion that substantial rod input came from distant, rod‐dominated terminal arborizations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The contrast sensitivity of retinal ganglion cells of the cat
Enroth-Cugell, C., & Robson, J. G. (1966) · The Journal of Physiology · doi:10.1113/jphysiol.1966.sp008107 · Cited by 2,625
Cited by
A silicon model of early visual processing
Mead, C. A., & Mahowald, M. A. (1988) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/0893-6080(88)90024-x · Cited by 503
Rod Vision: Pathways and Processing in the Mammalian Retina
Bloomfield, S. A., & Dacheux, R. F. (2001) · Progress in Retinal and Eye Research · doi:10.1016/s1350-9462(00)00031-8 · Cited by 375
The Circadian Clock in the Retina Controls Rod-Cone Coupling
Ribelayga, C., Cao, Y., & Mangel, S. C. (2008) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.07.017 · Cited by 270
Dryja, T. P., McGee, T. L., Berson, E. L., Fishman, G. A., Sandberg, M. A., Alexander, K. R., Derlacki, D. J., & Rajagopalan, A. S. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0501233102 · Cited by 216
Metadata
- Authors
- Nelson, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Comparative Neurology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1977-03
- Volume
- 172
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 109-135
- ISSN
- 0021-9967 (ISSN-L)
- 1096-9861
- OpenAlex
- W2080640045
- Cited by
- 327
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cat cones have rod input: A comparison of the response properties of cones and horizontal cell bodies in the retina of the cat. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cne.901720106
- The paper
- Nelson, R. (1977). Cat cones have rod input: A comparison of the response properties of cones and horizontal cell bodies in the retina of the cat. Journal of Comparative Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.901720106
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.