IOVS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

(Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2005;46:3458-3462.)
© 2005 by The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
DOI:  10.1167/iovs.05-0382
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (6)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hansen, R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Fulton, A. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hansen, R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Fulton, A. B.

Development of the Cone ERG in Infants

Ronald M. Hansen and Anne B. Fulton

From the Department of Ophthalmology, Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
PURPOSE. To assess cone photoreceptor and cone-mediated postreceptoral retinal function in infants.

METHODS. ERG responses to a 1.8-log unit range of long-wavelength flashes on a white, rod-saturating background were recorded in 4-week-old (n = 22) and 10-week-old (n = 28) infants and control adults and children, 8 to 40 years of age (n = 13). A model of the activation of cone phototransduction was fit to the a-waves. Sensitivity (SCONE) and saturated-response amplitude (RCONE) were calculated. The amplitude and implicit time of the b-wave were examined as a function of stimulus intensity. The cone photoresponse parameters were compared to the rod photoresponse parameters (SROD and RROD) in the same subjects.

RESULTS. SCONE and RCONE in infants were significantly smaller than in the mature control subjects. The mean SCONE was 64% and 68%, and the mean RCONE was 63% and 72% in 4- and 10-week-olds, respectively. The mean rod photoresponse parameters were considerably less mature, as the mean SROD was 35% and 46%, and the mean RROD was 39% and 43% of mature values at 4 and 10 weeks. The b-wave stimulus–response functions in the 4- and 10-week-old infants did not show the photopic hill that was characteristic of the children’s and adults’ photopic b-waves.

CONCLUSIONS. Peripheral cone function is relatively more mature than rod function in young infants. The lack of a photopic hill is hypothesized to result from immaturity in the relative contributions of ON and OFF bipolar cell responses.

During infancy, significant increments in both rod- and cone-mediated visual sensitivity are observed. By age 6 months, rod outer segment length, rhodopsin content, and consequent quantum catch have increased so that rod-mediated visual sensitivity has become equal to that of adults.1 The improvement in acuity during infancy2 3 4 is attributable, in part, to development of the foveal cones.5 6 7 However, the foveal cones comprise less than 1% of all the cones in the retina.8 The development of peripheral cone and cone-mediated function has been studied very little.

In keeping with earlier differentiation of cones than rods9 and earlier maturation of peripheral cone than rod outer segments,10 the cone-mediated ERG is relatively more mature than the rod-mediated response in single-stimulus conditions.11 The cone photoreceptor response and the cone-mediated b-wave response to a range of stimuli have yet to be studied in infants. The goal of the present study is to investigate the activation of peripheral cone photoresponse and to compare the relative maturity of the cone and previously studied rod photoresponse. In addition, the stimulus–response characteristics of the cone-mediated b-wave are described.


   Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Subjects
Term-born infants, aged 4 weeks (23–39 days; n = 22) and 10 weeks (63–78 days; n = 28) were recruited by mail. All had been born within 10 days of their due dates and were in good general health. Normal control adults and children (ages, 8–40 years; n = 13) were also studied. There is no significant variation in the scotopic a- and b-wave response parameters over this age range.12 No subject had a family history of eye or vision problems. Thorough ophthalmic examination disclosed no abnormalities. Written, informed consent was obtained from control subjects and the parents of the infants and children. This study conformed to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Children’s Hospital Committee on Clinical Investigation.

General ERG Procedure
The left pupil was dilated with 1% cyclopentolate, and the subject was dark-adapted for 30 minutes. Parents stayed with infants throughout the procedure. After 30 minutes of dark adaptation, in dim red light, 0.5% proparacaine was instilled, and a bipolar Burian-Allen electrode was placed on the left cornea. A ground electrode was placed on the skin over the left mastoid.

Responses were differentially amplified (band-pass, 1–1000 Hz; gain, 1000), displayed on an oscilloscope, digitized, and stored on disc for analysis later. An adjustable voltage window was used to reject records contaminated by artifacts. Two to 16 responses were averaged in each stimulus condition. The interstimulus interval ranged from 2 to 60 seconds and was selected so that subsequent b-wave amplitudes were not attenuated.12

Cone ERG
Responses were recorded in a 1.8-log unit range (+1.4 to +3.2 log phot td · s) of full-field, long-wavelength (red Wratten 29 {lambda} >610 nm) strobe stimuli (Novatron, Dallas, TX) presented on a steady, rod-saturating background (~ +3 log phot td · s). This approach has been used to isolate a cone response in adults with little rod intrusion.13 The stimuli were incremented in 0.3-log unit steps. On records such as those shown in Figure 1 , cone photoresponse parameters were derived from the a-wave. The trough-to-peak amplitude of the b-wave and implicit time of the b-wave were measured and examined as a function of log flash intensity.



View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 1. Sample cone-mediated ERG records in representative 4- and 10-week-old infants and a control subject. Responses to a 1.8-log unit range of long-wavelength (red) flashes presented on a steady, white, rod-saturating background are shown. The peak of the b-wave used to measure implicit time is indicated by the tick marks.

 
The initial portion of the a-wave depends on the photocurrent in the rods and cones.14 15 16 17 18 19 We took care to restrict fit of the transduction model to the early portion of the a-wave, to minimize postreceptoral contamination.19 20 21 22 The cone photoresponse parameters were calculated by fit of a modification of the Lamb and Pugh16 18 model of the activation of phototransduction to the first 11 ms of the a-wave. The modification incorporates a cascaded low pass exponential filter that models the capacitance of the cone membrane13 23 by numerical convolution of the filter output with the delayed Gaussian function used to model the rod response.16 18 The equation13 used was

(1)
where RCONE is the saturated response amplitude (microvolts), SCONE the gain parameter (phot td–1 · s–3), td a brief delay (ms), and {tau} the time constant of the RC filter (in milliseconds). The symbol * represents the convolution operation. In preliminary studies, according to the procedure of Hood and Birch,13 the effect of varying td (1–5 ms) and {tau} (1–5 ms) on the root mean square (RMS) error of model fits was examined. For the final calculation of SCONE and RCONE, {tau} was fixed at 1.8 ms and td at 3 ms for both infants and control subjects. These values produced minimum RMS errors and are similar to those used previously.13

Rod ERG
Responses to full-field, short wavelength (blue Wratten 47B; {lambda} <510 nm) strobe stimuli (Novatron) were recorded as previously described.12 Stimuli ranged from those that evoked a small b-wave (<15 µV) to those that saturated the a-wave amplitude and slope. The rod photoresponse parameters (SROD and RROD) were calculated by fit of the Hood and Birch14 formulation of the Lamb and Pugh16 18 model to the a-waves. The equation used was

(2)
where RROD (in microvolts) is the saturated response amplitude, SROD (scot td–1 · s–3) is a sensitivity parameter, I the flash in scotopic troland-seconds, and td a brief delay (in milliseconds). The rod and rod-mediated responses of these subjects have been presented in a previous report.12

Calibrations
The unattenuated flash, measured with a detector (IL 1700; International Light, Newburyport, MA) placed at the position of the subject’s cornea, was 2.7 log phot cd/m2. Retinal illuminance varies directly with area of the pupil and the transmissivity of the ocular media and inversely with the square of the posterior nodal distance.24 We used direct estimation of each infants’ dilated pupil, the published estimates of the ocular media density,25 26 and measures of the axial length of the infant eye27 28 29 to make this calculation. In summary, equal-intensity stimuli produced approximately equal retinal illuminances in both infants and control subjects.24 30 31 The maximum-intensity, long-wavelength light produced a retinal illuminance of approximately +3.2 log phot td · s. For the rod studies, the maximum intensity short wavelength light produced approximately +3.6 log scot td · s in both infants and control subjects.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Sample cone ERG records for a subject from each age group are shown in Figure 1 . In Figure 2 , the first 20 ms are replotted with the model of the cone photoresponse (equation 1) fit to the first 11 ms of the a-wave. The model of activation represented by equation 1 describes reasonably well the leading edge of the a-wave in both infants and control subjects. RMS errors did not vary significantly with age. The model parameters (SCONE and RCONE) for each subject are plotted in Figure 3 , and the means and standard errors are summarized in Table 1 . Variability in SCONE and RCONE did not differ significantly between control subjects and either group of infants. Both SCONE and RCONE varied significantly with age (SCONE: F = 11; df: 2,62; P < 0.001; RCONE: F = 10.6; df = 2,62; P < 0.001). For both SCONE and RCONE, the 4- and 10-week old infants differed significantly from control subjects (Scheffé test; P < 0.05) but not from each other. In the control group, there was no significant change in either SCONE or RCONE with age.



View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 2. The first 40 ms of the ERG records are plotted for representative 4- and 10-week-old infants and control subjects. Dashed lines: equation 1 fit to these records. SCONE and RCONE are shown for each subject.

 


View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 3. The activation parameters (SCONE and RCONE) for each subject are shown. Horizontal lines: means for each group.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1. Summary of Activation Parameters

 
The cone sensitivity parameter (SCONE) was 64% ± 4.2% (SE) of the control mean at 4 weeks and 68% ± 4.8%) of the control mean at 10 weeks (Fig. 4) . The average saturated amplitude of the cone response (RCONE) was 63% ± 5.1% and 72% ± 4.8% of the control mean at 4 and 10 weeks. These results contrast with the rod sensitivity parameter (SROD) which was only 35% ± 3.7% of the control mean at 4 weeks and 46% ± 3.3% at 10 weeks (Fig. 4) . The rod-saturated amplitude (RROD) was only 39% ± 3.2% and 43% ± 2.2% of control subjects at 4 and 10 weeks. For both classes of photoreceptors, the relative immaturity of the sensitivity and saturated amplitude parameters were similar. Within individuals, those with more pronounced immaturities of cone photoresponse parameters had more pronounced immaturities of rod photoresponse parameters. Specifically, SCONE and SROD correlated significantly (r = 0.56; df = 62; P < 0.01), and RCONE and RROD correlated significantly (r = 0.45; df = 62; P < 0.01).



View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 4. The mean ± SEM sensitivity (SROD, SCONE) and saturated amplitude (RROD, RCONE) parameters in infants compared with control subjects. For each subject, the sensitivity and saturated amplitude was expressed as a percentage of the mean for control subjects.

 
Cone-Mediated b-Wave Amplitudes and Implicit Times.
The mean amplitudes and implicit times of the cone-mediated b-wave responses are plotted as a function of stimulus intensity in Figure 5 . The control subjects’ b-wave amplitude initially increased with flash intensity, peaked at approximately +2.3 log photopic td · s, and then decreased with further increments of stimulus intensity. At the brightest flash, the mean b-wave amplitude in control subjects was approximately half the peak amplitude. This "photopic hill" is a characteristic of the mature photopic b-wave stimulus response function.32 33 34 35 36 37 A photopic hill was not seen in the 4- or 10-week old infants (Fig. 5) although the infants and control subjects had responses over the same range of stimuli and had maximum b-wave amplitudes that were similar. A simple shift by an amount proportional to the reduction in SCONE (~0.3 log unit) does not superimpose the functions. Analysis of variance showed significant main effects of age (F = 8.48, df = 2,8; P < 0.01) and stimulus intensity (F = 35.65, df = 6,8; P < 0.01), as well as significant interaction (F = 3.61, df = 12,414 P < 0.01).



View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 5. Mean ± SEM b-wave amplitude and implicit time in 4- and 10-week-olds and control subjects. In control subjects, the peak of the photopic hill was at +2.3 log phot td · s. The infants’ stimulus–response functions showed no photopic hill.

 
The average implicit time of the b-wave did not change systematically with intensity at any age (Fig. 5) . The average b-wave implicit times in 4- and 10-week old infants were similar (4 weeks, mean = 36 ± 3 ms [SD]; 10 weeks, mean = 38 ± 4 ms). The average b-wave implicit time in the control subjects (mean = 30 ± 3 ms) was significantly shorter.


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
Peripheral cone function, as summarized by SCONE and RCONE, underwent slight but statistically significant developmental increases after term but was relatively more mature than rod function, as indicated by the corresponding parameters SROD and RROD (Fig. 4 , Table 1 ). The sparse anatomic data also show relatively greater maturity of peripheral cones than rod outer segment lengths. For instance, at age 1 week, peripheral cone outer segment length is 91% and rod outer segment length is 42% of those in the adult.10 The early maturity of peripheral cones sharply contrasts with the protracted course of development of the foveal cones.5 6 10 For both classes of photoreceptors, at each age, the relative immaturity of the sensitivity (SCONE and SROD) and saturated amplitude (RCONE and RROD) parameters were similar. This suggests not only that peripheral cone outer segments are shorter in infants than in adults, but that sensitivity, which depends on the molecular mobilities of the transduction cascade proteins in the outer segment disc membrane up to channel closure, is proportional to outer segment length. It may also be taken as evidence that in infants’ cones, the molecular composition of the disc membrane and the disc-to-channel relation are the same as in adults. The same can be said of the immature rod photoreceptors.12

The absence of a photopic hill in the infant subjects’ b-wave stimulus/response function is an unexpected finding. The shape of the photopic b-wave stimulus–response functions of infants and control subjects differed (Fig. 5) . In contrast, the scotopic b-wave stimulus–response function had the same shape in infants and control subjects.12 The cone pathway includes both ON and OFF bipolar cells that make contributions to the b-wave. A decrease in the positive amplitude of the ON bipolar cell response and a delay in the peak of the OFF response with increasing stimulus intensity is thought to account for the photopic hill in the cone-mediated ERG.36 Possibly, the shape of the infants’ b-wave stimulus response function (Fig. 5) resulted from immaturities in the relative strength and/or timing of these ON and OFF bipolar cell contributions to the b-wave.

In summary, the present results are evidence of slight, but statistically significant, immaturities of the cone photoresponse in early infancy. The infants’ b-wave stimulus–response function lacked a photopic hill. These data provide provisional norms against which the photopic ERG responses in young patients may be compared.


   Acknowledgements
 
The authors thank Amber Barnaby, Baharek Asefezdah, Marta Jolesz, and Annie Gee for providing assistance.


   Footnotes
 
Supported by National Eye Institute Grant EY10597.

Submitted for publication March 24, 2005; revised April 20, 2005; accepted April 25, 2005.

Disclosure: R.M. Hansen, None; A.B. Fulton, None

The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. This article must therefore be marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Corresponding author: Ronald M. Hansen, Department of Ophthalmology, Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 300 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115; ronald.hansen{at}childrens.harvard.edu.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Hansen RM, Fulton A. The course of maturation of rod mediated visual thresholds in infants. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:1883–1885.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Mayer DL, Beiser AS, Warner AF, Pratt EM, Raye KN, Lang JM. Monocular acuity norms for the Teller acuity cards between ages 1 month and 4 years. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1995;36:671–685.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Courage M, Adams R. Visual acuity assessment from birth to three years using the acuity card procedure: cross-sectional and longitudinal samples. Optom Vis Sci. 1990;67:713–718.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Salamao SR, Ventura DF. Large-sample population age norms for visual acuities obtained with Vistech/Teller Acuity Cards. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1995;36:657–670.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Hendrickson A, Yuodelis C. The morphological development of the human fovea. Ophthalmology. 1984;91:603–612.[ISI][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Yuodelis C, Hendrickson AE. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the human fovea during development. Vision Res. 1986;26:847–855.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Blakemore C. Maturation of mechanisms for efficient spatial vision. Blakemore C eds. Vision: Coding and Efficiency. 1990;256–266. Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK.
  8. Curcio CA, Sloan KR, Kalina RE, Hendrickson AE. Human photoreceptor topography. J Comp Neurol. 1990;292:497–523.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Carter Dawson LD, LaVail MM. Rods and cones in the mouse retina. II. Autoradiographic analysis of cell generation using tritiated thymidine. J Comp Neurol. 1979;188:263–272.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Hendrickson AE. The morphologic development of human and monkey retina. Albert DM Jakobiec FA eds. Principles and Practice of Ophthalmology: Basic Sciences. 1994;561–577. WB Saunders Philadelphia.
  11. Fulton AB, Hansen R, Westall CA. Development of ERG responses: the ISCEV rod, maximal and cone responses in normal subjects. Doc Ophthalmol. 2003;107:235–241.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  12. Fulton AB, Hansen RM. The development of scotopic sensitivity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:1588–1596.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Hood DC, Birch DG. Phototransduction in human cones measured using the a-wave of the ERG. Vision Res. 1995;35:2801–2810.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  14. Hood DC, Birch DG. Rod phototransduction in retinitis pigmentosa: estimation and interpretation of parameters derived from the rod a-wave. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994;35:2948–2961.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Lamb T. Transduction in vertebrate photoreceptors: the roles of cyclic GMP and calcium. Trends Neurosci. 1986;9:224–228.[CrossRef]
  16. Lamb TD, Pugh EN, Jr. A quantitative account of the activation steps involved in phototransduction in amphibian photoreceptors. J Physiol (Lond). 1992;449:719–758.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Pugh EN, Jr, Lamb TD. Phototransduction in vertebrate rods and cones: molecular mechanisms of amplification, recovery and light adaptation. Stavenga DG de Grip WJ Pugh EN, Jr eds. Molecular Mechanisms of Visual Transduction. Handbook of Biological Physics. 2000;3:183–255. Elsevier Science New York.
  18. Pugh EN, Jr, Lamb TD. Amplification and kinetics of the activation steps in phototransduction. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1993;1141:111–149.[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  19. Freidburg C, Allen CP, Mason PJ, Lamb TD. Contributions of cone photoreceptors and post-receptoral mechanisms to the human photopic electroretinogram. J Physiol (Lond). 2004;556:819–834.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Robson JG, Frishman LJ. Photoreceptor and bipolar cell contributions to the cat electroretinogram: a kinetic model for the early part of the flash response. J Opt Soc Am. 1996;13:613–622.[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  21. Bush RA, Sieving PA. A proximal retinal component in the primate photopic ERG a-wave. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994;35:635–645.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Jamison JA, Bush RA, Lei B, Sieving PA. Characterization of the rod photoresponse isolated from the dark adapted primate ERG. Vis Neurosci. 2001;18:445–455.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  23. Cideciyan AV, Jacobson SG. An alternative phototransduction model for human rod and cone ERG a-waves: normal parameters and variation with age. Vision Res. 1996;36:2609–2621.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Hansen RM, Fulton AB. Development of scotopic retinal sensitivity. Simons K eds. Early Visual Development, Normal and Abnormal. 1993;130–142. Oxford University Press New York.
  25. Hansen RM, Fulton AB. Psychophysical estimates of ocular media density of human infants. Vision Res. 1989;29:687–690.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Werner JS. Development of scotopic sensitivity and the absorption spectrum of the human ocular media. J Optic Soc Am. 1982;72:247–258.
  27. Larsen JS. The sagittal growth of the eye. IV. Ultrasonic measurements of the axial length of the eye from birth to puberty. Acta Ophthalmol. 1971;49:873–886.[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  28. Achiron R, Kreiser D, Achiron A. Axial growth of the fetal eye and evaluation of the hyaloid artery in utero ultrasonographic study. Prenat Diagn. 2000;20:894–899.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  29. Denis D, Burguiere O, Burillon C. A biometric study of the eye, orbit and face in 205 normal human fetuses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1998;39:2232–2238.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Brown AM, Dobson V, Maier J. Visual acuity of human infants at scotopic, mesopic and photopic luminances. Vision Res. 1987;27:1845–1858.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  31. Hansen RM, Fulton AB, Harris SJ. Background adaptation in human infants. Vision Res. 1986;26:771–779.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  32. Lachapelle P, Rufiange M, Dembinska O. A physiological basis for definition of the ISCEV ERG standard flash (SF) based on the photopic hill. Doc Ophthalmol. 2001;102:157–162.[CrossRef][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Peachey NS, Alexander KR, Derlacki DJ, Fishman GA. Light adaptation and the luminance-response function of the cone electroretinogram. Doc Ophthalmol. 1992;79:363–369.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  34. Rufiange M, Rousseau S, Dembinska O, Lachapelle P. Cone-dominated ERG luminance-response function: the photopic hill revisited. Doc Ophthalmol. 2002;104:231–248.[CrossRef][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. Rufiange M, Dassa J, Dembinska O, et al. The photopic ERG luminance-response function (photopic hill): method of analysis and clinical application. Vision Res. 2003;43:1405–1412.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  36. Ueno S, Kondo M, Yasurhiro N, Terasaki H, Miyake Y. Luminance dependence of neural components that underlies the primate photopic electroretinogram. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:1033–1040.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Wali N, Leguire LE. The photopic hill: a new phenomenon of the light adapted electroretinogram. Doc Ophthalmol. 1992;80:335–345.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 IOVSHome page
R. M. Hansen, A. Moskowitz, and A. B. Fulton
Multifocal ERG Responses in Infants
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., January 1, 2009; 50(1): 470 - 475.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
A. B. Fulton, R. M. Hansen, and A. Moskowitz
The Cone Electroretinogram in Retinopathy of Prematurity
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., February 1, 2008; 49(2): 814 - 819.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (6)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hansen, R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Fulton, A. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hansen, R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Fulton, A. B.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS