Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 533

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

Changes in time scale and sensitivity in turtle photoreceptors

Open access
Baylor, D. A., Hodgkin, A. L.·1974·The Journal of Physiology

Abstract

1. In turtle cones the steady‐state relation between the internal potential and log light intensity was much flatter in the steady state than it was at 30 msec after the beginning of a step of light; this is attributed to a desensitization which develops with a delay of 50–100 msec. 2. When a weak flash was superposed on a steady background light which hyperpolarized the cone by 3‐6 mV the amplitude of the linear response to a flash was reduced to 1/e and the time to maximum was shortened from about 110 to 70 msec; the response also became diphasic. With stronger background lights the flash sensitivity continued to fall, but the time to maximum did not become shorter than 40–50 msec and lengthened again with very strong lights. 3. In cones the flash sensitivity SF was reduced to half its dark value SFD by a light intensity of 1/SFD ζ where ζ is about 20 sec/V. 4. At low levels of background light, about two‐thirds of the change in sensitivity was time‐dependent and one‐third was attributable to the ‘instantaneous non‐linearity’ described in the previous paper. 5. The reduction in time to peak and the decrease in sensitivity produced by a background light which hyperpolarized by about 3 mV was little affected by changing the diameter of the area illuminated from 12 to 800 μm. 6. An experiment with a rod showed that a very weak light which hyperpolarized by only 0·5 mV decreased the linear response to 1/e and shortened the time to maximum from 300 to 180 msec. 7. With weak or moderate flashes the time‐dependent desensitization lagged behind the potential by 50–100 msec. 8. The desensitization and shortening of time scale which persisted after a flash or step were associated with an after‐hyperpolarization. The relaxation of potential, sensitivity and time scale became slower as the preceding illumination was increased from 10 3 to 10 10 photons μm−2; the increase seemed to occur in steps involving components which relaxed with time constants of the order of 0·1, 1, 10 and 100 sec. A rebound phenomenon was observed after steps longer than 30 sec and with equivalent intensities greater than 10 5 photons μm−2 sec−1. 9. Several of the observations are explained by a hypothesis in which the central assumption is that the particles which block the ionic channels are degraded or removed by an autocatalytic reaction.

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 · 10.1113/jphysiol.1974.sp010732

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

Cited by

See all 533

Metadata

Authors
Baylor, D. A., & Hodgkin, A. L.
Venue
The Journal of Physiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1974-11
Volume
242
Issue
3
Pages
729-758
ISSN
  • 0022-3751 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7793
OpenAlex
W2021062016
Cited by
533
References
1
FWCI
4.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Changes in time scale and sensitivity in turtle photoreceptors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1113/jphysiol.1974.sp010732
The paper
Baylor, D. A., & Hodgkin, A. L. (1974). Changes in time scale and sensitivity in turtle photoreceptors. The Journal of Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1974.sp010732

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.