Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,844

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Topography of ganglion cells in human retina

Curcio, Christine A., Allen, Kimberly A.·1990·Journal of Comparative Neurology

Abstract

We quantified the spatial distribution of presumed ganglion cells and displaced amacrine cells in unstained whole mounts of six young normal human retinas whose photoreceptor distributions had previously been characterized. Cells with large somata compared to their nuclei were considered ganglion cells; cells with small somata relative to their nuclei were considered displaced amacrine cells. Within the central area, ganglion cell densities reach 32,000‐‐38,000 cells/mm 2 in a horizontally oriented elliptical ring 0.4‐‐2.0 mm from the foveal center. In peripheral retina, densities in nasal retina exceed those at corresponding eccentricities in temporal retina by more than 300%; superior exceeds inferior by 60%. Displaced amacrine cells represented 3% of the total cells in central retina and nearly 80% in the far periphery. A twofold range in the total number of ganglion cells (0.7 to 1.5 million) was largely explained by a similar range in ganglion cell density in different eyes. Cone and ganglion cell number were not correlated, and the overall cone: ganglion cell ratio ranged from 2.9 to 7.5 in different eyes. Peripheral cones and ganglion cells have different topographies, thus suggesting meridianal differences in convergence onto individual ganglion cells. Low convergence of foveal cones onto individual ganglion cells is an important mechanism for preserving high resolution at later stages of neural processing. Our improved estimates for the density of central ganglion cells allowed us to ask whether there are enough ganglion cells for each cone at the foveal center to have a direct line to the brain. Our calculations indicate that (1) there are so many ganglion cells relative to cones that a ratio of only one ganglion cell per foveal cone would require fibers of Henle radiating toward rather than away from the foveal center; and (2) like the macaque, the human retina may have enough ganglion cells to transmit the information afforded by closely spaced foveal cones to both ON‐ and OFF‐channels. Comparison of ganglion cell topography with the visual field representation in V1 reveals similarities consistent with the idea that cortical magnification is proportional to ganglion cell density throughout the visual field.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cne.903000103

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 1,844

Metadata

Authors
Curcio, C. A., & Allen, K. A.
Venue
Journal of Comparative Neurology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1990-10
Volume
300
Issue
1
Pages
5-25
ISSN
  • 0021-9967 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9861
OpenAlex
W1964602001
Cited by
1,844
References
1
FWCI
5.94
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: Topography of ganglion cells in human retina. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cne.903000103
The paper
Curcio, C. A., & Allen, K. A. (1990). Topography of ganglion cells in human retina. Journal of Comparative Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.903000103

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.