CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 99Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesVisual perception and processing mechanismsRetinal Development and Disorders

Cone signals for spectacle-lens compensation: Differential responses to short and long wavelengths

Open access
Rucker, Frances J., Wallman, Josh·2008·Vision Research
DOI 10.1016/j.visres.2008.06.003PMC PMC2790044
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Chick eyes compensate for defocus imposed by spectacle lenses by making compensatory changes in eye length and choroidal thickness, a laboratory model of emmetropization. To investigate the roles of longitudinal chromatic aberration and of chromatic mechanisms in emmetropization, we examined the participation of different cone classes, and we compared the efficacy of lens compensation under monochromatic illumination with that under white light of the same illuminance to the chick eye. Chicks wore positive or negative 6D or 8D lenses on one eye for 3 days, under either blue (460 nm) or red (620 nm) light at 0.67 lux or under white light at 0.67 or 0.2 lux (all measures are corrected for chick photopic sensitivity). The illumination conditions were chosen to differentially stimulate either the short-wavelength and ultraviolet cones or the long-wavelength and double cones. Measurements are expressed as the relative change: the inter-ocular difference in the amount of change over the 3 days of lens wear. We find that under this low illumination the two components of lens compensation were differentially affected by the monochromatic illumination: in blue light lens compensation was mainly due to changes in eye length, whereas in red light lens compensation was mainly due to changes in choroidal thickness. In general, white light produced better lens compensation than monochromatic illumination. NEGATIVE LENSES: Under white light negative lenses caused an increase in eye length (60 microm) together with a decrease in choroidal thickness (-51 microm) relative to the fellow eye. Under blue light, although there was an increase in eye length (32 microm), there was no change in choroidal thickness (5 microm). In contrast, under red light there was a decrease in choroidal thickness (-62 microm) but no increase in eye length (8 microm). Relative ocular elongation was the same in white and monochromatic light. POSITIVE LENSES: Under white light positive lenses caused a decrease in eye length (-142 microm) together with an increase in choroidal thickness (68 microm) relative to the fellow eye. Under blue light, there was a decrease in eye length (-64 microm), but no change in choroidal thickness (2 microm). In contrast, under red light there was an increase (90 microm) in choroidal thickness but less of a decrease (-36 microm) in eye length. Lens compensation by inhibition of ocular elongation was less effective under monochromatic illumination than under white light (white v red: p=0.003; white v blue p=.014). The differential effects of red and blue light on the choroidal and ocular length compensatory responses suggest that they are driven by different proportions of the cone-types, implying that, although chromatic contrast is not essential for lens compensation and presumably for emmetropization as well, the retinal substrates exist for utilizing chromatic contrast in these compensatory responses. The generally better lens compensation in white than monochromatic illumination suggests that longitudinal chromatic aberration may be used in lens compensation.

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 · 10.1016/j.visres.2008.06.003

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In chicks, with hyperopic defocus, the cone contrast comparison will be between S-cones and double cones, since the spectral sensitivity of L- and M-cones is attenuated at short wavelengths.

    “In chicks, with hyperopic defocus, the cone contrast comparison will be between the Scones and the double cones, since the spectral sensitivity of the L-and M-cones is attenuated at short wavelengths (Rucker & Wallman, 2008).”

    From Chicks use changes in luminance and chromatic contrast as indicators of the sign of defocus (2012) · cites this paper as Rucker & Wallman, 2008

    The Introduction describes double cones as sensitive into the short-wavelength region, and Methods (‘Chick cone sensitivity functions’; page unavailable) describes short-wavelength filtering in M- and L-cones, with a sharper cutoff in L-cones than in double cones. But the paper does not establish that hyperopic defocus is assessed by comparing S-cone and double-cone contrast; the Discussion says it did not directly test whether longitudinal chromatic aberration is used in lens compensation. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Both L- and S-cones are used in lens compensation in chicks.

    “Therefore, it is important to note that both L-and S-cones are used in lens compensation in chicks (Rucker & Wallman, 2008).”

    From Chicks use changes in luminance and chromatic contrast as indicators of the sign of defocus (2012) · cites this paper as Rucker & Wallman, 2008

    The Results report lens compensation in both red and blue light, supporting a role for long- and short-wavelength cone pathways in chicks. But the Methods say the experiment could not distinguish L-cones from double cones or S-cones from UV-cones, so it does not establish that both named cone types individually are used. The indexed copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The −15.16 D/mm change in eye length is slightly less than the −18 to −25 D/mm change in vitreous chamber depth found in earlier experiments.

    “This is slightly less than the À18 D to À25 D/mm change in vitreous chamber depth found in earlier experiments (Kee, Marzani, & Wallman, 2001;Rucker & Wallman, 2008), probably because the choroidal changes reduced the refractive changes (the correlation between the vitreous chamber depth and refraction was only r 2 ¼ 0.04).”

    From Chicks use changes in luminance and chromatic contrast as indicators of the sign of defocus (2012) · cites this paper as Rucker & Wallman, 2008

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 57

  1. Barbur JL Harlow AJ Plant GT Insights into the different exploits of colour in the visual cortex Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences 1994 258 1353 327 334 7886066
  2. Bowmaker JK Heath LA Wilkie SE Hunt DM Visual pigments and oil droplets from six classes of photoreceptor in the retinas of birds Vision Res 1997 37 16 2183 2194 9578901
  3. Bowmaker JK Knowles A The visual pigments and oil droplets of the chicken retina Vision Res 1977 17 7 755 764 898682
  4. Chen DM Goldsmith TH Appearance of a Purkinje shift in the developing retina of the chick J Exp Zool 1984 229 2 265 271 6736886
  5. De Valois RL De Valois KK Broadbent D McGaugh JL MacKintosh NJ Posner M Tulving E Weiskrantz L Sensitivity to color variations Spatial Vision 1988 Oxford University Press New York, Oxford
  6. Derrington AM Visual system: ‘S’ is not for saccades Curr Biol 2002 12 17 R591 592 12225680
  7. Goldsmith TH Butler BK The roles of receptor noise and cone oil droplets in the photopic spectral sensitivity of the budgerigar, Melopsittacus undulatus J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol 2003 189 2 135 142 12607042
  8. Goldsmith TH Collins JS Licht S The cone oil droplets of avian retinas Vision Res 1984 24 11 1661 1671 6533991
  9. Graham B Judge SJ The effects of spectacle wear in infancy on eye growth and refractive error in the marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) Vision Res 1999 39 2 189 206 10326130
  10. Howlett MH McFadden SA Form-deprivation myopia in the guinea pig (Cavia porcellus) Vision Res 2006 46 12 267 283 16139323
  11. Hughes A A useful table of reduced schematic eyes for vertebrates which includes computed longitudinal chromatic aberrations Vision Res 1979 19 11 1273 1275 121653
  12. Hung LF Crawford ML Smith EL Spectacle lenses alter eye growth and the refractive status of young monkeys Nat Med 1995 1 8 761 765 7585177
  13. Hung LF Wallman J Smith EL 3rd Vision-dependent changes in the choroidal thickness of macaque monkeys Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000 41 6 1259 1269 10798639
  14. Hurlbert A Cotteril RMJ Colour algorithms for image segmentation Models of brain function 1989 89 113 Cambridge University Press Cambridge
  15. Irving EL Sivak JG Callender MG Refractive plasticity of the developing chick eye Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1992 12 4 448 456 1293533
  16. Jones CD Osorio D Discrimination of oriented visual textures by poultry chicks Vision Res 2004 44 1 83 89 14599573
  17. Kee CS Form-deprivation myopia and lens-compensation ametropia: Studies on chicken eyes Masters Thesis 1998 City University of New York
  18. Kingdom FA Color brings relief to human vision Nat Neurosci 2003 6 6 641 644 12740582
  19. Kroger RH Wagner HJ The eye of the blue acara (Aequidens pulcher, Cichlidae) grows to compensate for defocus due to chromatic aberration J Comp Physiol [A] 1996 179 6 837 842 8956500
  20. Kruger PB Rucker FJ Hu C Rutman H Schmidt NW Roditis V Accommodation with and without short-wavelength-sensitive cones and chromatic aberration Vision Res 2005 45 10 1265 1274 15733959
  21. Lamb TD Photoreceptor spectral sensitivities: common shape in the long-wavelength region Vision Res 1995 35 22 3083 3091 8533344
  22. Li A Lennie P Importance of color in the segmentation of variegated surfaces J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 2001 18 6 1240 1251 11393615
  23. Mandelman T Sivak JG Longitudinal chromatic aberration of the vertebrate eye Vision Res 1983 23 12 1555 1559 6666057
  24. Manglapus MK Uchiyama H Buelow NF Barlow RB Circadian rhythms of rod-cone dominance in the Japanese quail retina J Neurosci 1998 18 12 4775 4784 9614251 PMC6792694
  25. McFadden SA Howlett MH Mertz JR Retinoic acid signals the direction of ocular elongation in the guinea pig eye Vision Res 2004 44 7 643 653 14751549
  26. McLean RC Wallman J Severe astigmatic blur does not interfere with spectacle lens compensation Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003 44 2 449 457 12556368
  27. Nickla DL Transient increases in choroidal thickness are consistently associated with brief daily visual stimuli that inhibit ocular growth in chicks Exp Eye Res 2007 84 5 951 959 17395180
  28. Nickla DL Wildsoet C Wallman J Visual influences on diurnal rhythms in ocular length and choroidal thickness in chick eyes Exp Eye Res 1998 66 2 163 181 9533843
  29. Nickla DL Wilken E Lytle G Yom S Mertz J Inhibiting the transient choroidal thickening response using the nitric oxide synthase inhibitor l-NAME prevents the ameliorative effects of visual experience on ocular growth in two different visual paradigms Exp Eye Res 2006 83 2 456 464 16635488
  30. Norton TT Siegwart JT Jr. Animal models of emmetropization: matching axial length to the focal plane J Am Optom Assoc 1995 66 7 405 414 7560727
  31. Orger MB Baier H Channeling of red and green cone inputs to the zebrafish optomotor response Vis Neurosci 2005 22 3 275 281 16079003
  32. Palacios AG Goldsmith TH Bernard GD Sensitivity of cones from a cyprinid fish (Danio aequipinnatus) to ultraviolet and visible light Vis Neurosci 1996 13 3 411 421 8782369
  33. Park TW Winawer J Wallman J Further evidence that chick eyes use the sign of blur in spectacle lens compensation Vision Res 2003 43 14 1519 1531 12782066
  34. Rohrer B Schaeffel F Zrenner E Longitudinal chromatic aberration and emmetropization: results from the chicken eye J Physiol 1992 449 363 376 1522513 PMC1176083
  35. Rucker FJ Kruger PB Isolated short-wavelength sensitive cones can mediate a reflex accommodation response Vision Res 2001 41 7 911 922 11248276
  36. Rucker FJ Kruger PB Accommodation responses to stimuli in cone contrast space Vision Res 2004a 44 25 2931 2944 15380997
  37. Rucker FJ Kruger PB The role of short-wavelength sensitive cones and chromatic aberration in the response to stationary and step accommodation stimuli Vision Res 2004b 44 2 197 208 14637368
  38. Schaeffel F Glasser A Howland HC Accommodation, refractive error and eye growth in chickens Vision Res 1988 28 5 639 657 3195068
  39. Schaeffel F Howland HC Properties of the feedback loops controlling eye growth and refractive state in the chicken Vision Res 1991 31 4 717 734 1843772
  40. Schaeffel F Rohrer B Lemmer T Zrenner E Diurnal control of rod function in the chicken Vis Neurosci 1991 6 6 641 653 1883768
  41. Seidemann A Schaeffel F Effects of longitudinal chromatic aberration on accommodation and emmetropization Vision Res 2002 42 21 2409 2417 12367740
  42. Shaikh AW Siegwart JT Jr. Norton TT Effect of interrupted lens wear on compensation for a minus lens in tree shrews Optom Vis Sci 1999 76 5 308 315 10375247
  43. Smith EL Rosenfield M Gilmartin B Environmentally induced refractive errors in animals Myopia and Nearwork 1998 57 90 Butterworth-Heinemann Oxford
  44. Sumner P Nachev P Vora N Husain M Kennard C Distinct cortical and collicular mechanisms of inhibition of return revealed with S cone stimuli Curr Biol 2004 14 24 2259 2263 15620653
  45. Troilo D Judge SJ Ocular development and visual deprivation myopia in the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) Vision Res 1993 33 10 1311 1324 8333155
  46. Troilo D Nickla DL Wildsoet CF Choroidal thickness changes during altered eye growth and refractive state in a primate Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000 41 6 1249 1258 10798638
  47. von Campenhausen M Kirschfeld K Visual attention modifies spectral sensitivity of nystagmic eye movements Vision Res 1999 39 8 1551 1554 10343820
  48. Wallman J Adams JI Developmental aspects of experimental myopia in chicks: susceptibility, recovery and relation to emmetropization Vision Res 1987 27 7 1139 1163 3660666
  49. Wallman J Wildsoet C Xu A Gottlieb MD Nickla DL Marran L Krebs W Christensen AM Moving the retina: choroidal modulation of refractive state Vision Res 1995 35 1 37 50 7839608
  50. Wallman J Winawer J Homeostasis of eye growth and the question of myopia Neuron 2004 43 4 447 468 15312645
  51. Wildsoet C Rosenfield M Gilmartin B Structural Correlates of Myopia Myopia and Nearwork 1998 31 56 Butterworth-Heinemann Oxford
  52. Wildsoet C Wallman J Choroidal and scleral mechanisms of compensation for spectacle lenses in chicks Vision Res 1995 35 9 1175 1194 7610579
  53. Wildsoet CF Active emmetropization--evidence for its existence and ramifications for clinical practice Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1997 17 4 279 290 9390372
  54. Wildsoet CF Howland HC Falconer S Dick K Chromatic aberration and accommodation: their role in emmetropization in the chick Vision Res 1993 33 12 1593 1603 8236848
  55. Winawer J Wallman J Temporal constraints on lens compensation in chicks Vision Res 2002 42 24 2651 2668 12445851
  56. Winawer J Zhu X Choi J Wallman J Ocular compensation for alternating myopic and hyperopic defocus Vision Res 2005 45 13 1667 1677 15792842
  57. Zhu X Wallman J Temporal properties of compensation for positive and negative lenses in chick IOVS 2009 50 1 24 36 PMC2761084 18791175

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rucker, F. J., & Wallman, J.
Affiliations
City College of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Rucker, Frances J.
ORCID
Rucker, Frances J.
Venue
Vision Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-09
Volume
48
Issue
19
Pages
1980-1991
ISSN
0042-6989 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.visres.2008.06.003
PMC
PMC2790044
OpenAlex
W2045476736
Cited by
99
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Vision Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Eye Institute (R01EY002727, EY-02727, R37EY002727)
  • National Center for Research Resources (RR-03060)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Retinal Development and Disorders
Keywords
emmetropization, longitudinal chromatic aberration, cone photoreceptors, short-wavelength cones, double cones, eye length, choroidal thickness, defocus, monochromatic illumination, white light, chick eye, negative lenses, interocular differences
MeSH terms
Animals, Chickens, Choroid, Color, Color Perception, Disease Models, Animal, Eye, Eyeglasses, Lens, Crystalline, Photic Stimulation, Refraction, Ocular, Refractive Errors, Retinal Cone Photoreceptor Cells

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