PreprintCited by 24Visual perception and processing mechanismsRetinal Development and DisordersNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Functional organization of midget and parasol ganglion cells in the human retina

Open access
Kling, Alexandra, Gogliettino, Alex R., Shah, Nishal P., Wu, Eric G., Brackbill, Nora, Sher, Alexander, Litke, Alan M., Silva, Ruwan A. +1 more·2020·bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)

Abstract

ABSTRACT The functional organization of diverse retinal ganglion cell (RGC) types, which shapes the visual signal transmitted to the brain, has been examined in many species. The unique spatial, temporal, and chromatic properties of the numerically dominant RGC types in macaque monkey retina are presumed to most accurately model human vision. However, the functional similarity between RGCs in macaques and humans has only begun to be tested, and recent work suggests possible differences. Here, the properties of the numerically dominant human RGC types were examined using large-scale multi-electrode recordings with fine-grained visual stimulation in isolated retina, and compared to results from dozens of recordings from macaque retina using the same experimental methods and conditions. The properties of four major human RGC types -- ON-parasol, OFF-parasol, ON-midget, and OFF-midget -- closely paralleled those of the same macaque RGC types, including the spatial and temporal light sensitivity, precisely coordinated mosaic organization of receptive fields, ON-OFF asymmetries, spatial response nonlinearity, and sampling of photoreceptor inputs over space. Putative smooth monostratified cells and polyaxonal amacrine cells were also identified based on similarities to cell types previously identified in macaque retina. The results suggest that recently proposed differences between human and macaque RGCs probably reflect experimental differences, and that the macaque model provides an accurate picture of human RGC function.

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 · 10.1101/2020.08.07.240762

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • The physiological similarities between human and macaque retina, including their responses to electrical stimulation, suggest that the benefits of the present stimulation approach could translate from the ex vivo lab prototype with healthy macaque retina to an in vivo implant in the degenerated human retina.

    “The physiological similarities between human and macaque retina (Cowan et al., 2019; Kling et al., 2020; Soto et al., 2020; Rodieck, 1998), including their responses to electrical stimulation (Madugula et al., 2022), suggest that the benefits of the present stimulation approach could translate from the ex vivo lab prototype with healthy macaque retina to an in vivo implant in the degenerated human”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Roska B, Meister M, Werner JS, Chalupa LM (2014) The Retina Dissects the Visual Scene into Distinct Features. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kling, A., Gogliettino, A. R., Shah, N. P., Wu, E. G., Brackbill, N., Sher, A., Litke, A. M., Silva, R. A., & Chichilnisky, E. J.
Affiliations
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
Corresponding author
Chichilnisky, E.J.
Venue
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2020-08-07
OpenAlex
W3048032481
Cited by
24
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation ((DGE-114747, 0801700, 114747, GRFP DGE-114747)
  • Research to Prevent Blindness (0801700)
  • National Institutes of Health (DGE-114747)
  • Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, Stanford University
  • National Eye Institute (EY019005, P30EY019005, NEI R01, EY021271, R01EY021271, R01EY029247)
  • California National Primate Research Center
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Retinal Development and Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
retinal ganglion cells, midget cells, parasol cells, human retina, macaque retina, receptive field organization, multi-electrode recording, isolated retina, visual signal transmission

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