Skip to main content
PMC home page
The Journal of Physiology logoLink to The Journal of Physiology
. 1997 Nov 15;505(Pt 1):193–204. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7793.1997.193bc.x

Linear transduction of natural stimuli by dark-adapted and light-adapted rods of the salamander, Ambystoma tigrinum.

T Q Vu 1, S T McCarthy 1, W G Owen 1
PMCID: PMC1160104  PMID: 9409482

Abstract

1. We examined signal, noise and response properties of salamander rod photoreceptors by measuring: (a) the circulating current of rods which were adapted to darkness and to a wide range of backgrounds; (b) contrasts of natural environments; (c) the effect of adaptation on the linear response range of rods; and (d) the behaviour of rods responding to dynamically modulated stimuli having a range of contrasts found in nature. 2. In the dark, the circulating current contained two noise components analogous to those described in toad. A discrete noise component consisted of events occurring at a rate of 1 event per 32 s (21 degrees C) and had a variance of 0.036 pA2. A continuous noise component contributed 0.022 pA2 to the dark current, roughly equal to the discrete noise variance. 3. Exposure to a wide range of steady backgrounds (suppressing up to 80% of the circulating current), elicited a sustained fluctuating photocurrent having a power spectrum which resembled those of single photon responses and was consistent with the linear summation of single photon events; this indicates that the primary source of noise in the current is caused by the light. 4. Eighty-nine per cent of the contrasts (C) measured in natural environments had magnitude of C < 50%, where C = magnitude of I - Imean/magnitude of Imean. The linear response range elicited by brief flashes expanded with brighter backgrounds, well-encompassing flash contrasts of 100%. 5. Dynamically modulated stimuli and incremental flashes having contrasts similar to those in natural scenes elicited small currents which deviated by a few picoamps about the mean and the transfer functions computed from each type of stimulus-response pair closely corresponded to one another. These results indicate that in natural environments, rods behave as linear small-signal transducers of light.

Full text

PDF
197

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Baylor D. A., Lamb T. D., Yau K. W. Responses of retinal rods to single photons. J Physiol. 1979 Mar;288:613–634. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baylor D. A., Lamb T. D., Yau K. W. The membrane current of single rod outer segments. J Physiol. 1979 Mar;288:589–611. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baylor D. A., Matthews G., Yau K. W. Two components of electrical dark noise in toad retinal rod outer segments. J Physiol. 1980 Dec;309:591–621. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1980.sp013529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bodoia R. D., Detwiler P. B. Patch-clamp recordings of the light-sensitive dark noise in retinal rods from the lizard and frog. J Physiol. 1985 Oct;367:183–216. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1985.sp015820. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Dan Y., Atick J. J., Reid R. C. Efficient coding of natural scenes in the lateral geniculate nucleus: experimental test of a computational theory. J Neurosci. 1996 May 15;16(10):3351–3362. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.16-10-03351.1996. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fain G. L. Sensitivity of toad rods: Dependence on wave-length and background illumination. J Physiol. 1976 Sep;261(1):71–101. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1976.sp011549. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Gray P., Attwell D. Kinetics of light-sensitive channels in vertebrate photoreceptors. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1985 Jan 22;223(1232):379–388. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1985.0007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hárosi F. I. Absorption spectra and linear dichroism of some amphibian photoreceptors. J Gen Physiol. 1975 Sep;66(3):357–382. doi: 10.1085/jgp.66.3.357. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Juusola M., Kouvalainen E., Järvilehto M., Weckström M. Contrast gain, signal-to-noise ratio, and linearity in light-adapted blowfly photoreceptors. J Gen Physiol. 1994 Sep;104(3):593–621. doi: 10.1085/jgp.104.3.593. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Matthews G. Comparison of the light-sensitive and cyclic GMP-sensitive conductances of the rod photoreceptor: noise characteristics. J Neurosci. 1986 Sep;6(9):2521–2526. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.06-09-02521.1986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Pinter R. B. Sinusoidal and delta function responses of visual cells of the Limulus eye. J Gen Physiol. 1966 Jan;49(3):565–593. doi: 10.1085/jgp.49.3.565. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Rieke F., Baylor D. A. Molecular origin of continuous dark noise in rod photoreceptors. Biophys J. 1996 Nov;71(5):2553–2572. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(96)79448-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. de Ruyter van Steveninck R. R., Lewen G. D., Strong S. P., Koberle R., Bialek W. Reproducibility and variability in neural spike trains. Science. 1997 Mar 21;275(5307):1805–1808. doi: 10.1126/science.275.5307.1805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of Physiology are provided here courtesy of The Physiological Society

RESOURCES