Skip to main content
PMC home page
The Journal of Physiology logoLink to The Journal of Physiology
. 1977 Aug;269(3):517–534. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1977.sp011912

Rod-cone interaction in light adaptation

M Latch 1, P Lennie 1,*
PMCID: PMC1283723  PMID: 894602

Abstract

1. The increment-threshold for a small test spot in the peripheral visual field was measured against backgrounds that were red or blue.

2. When the background was a large uniform field, threshold over most of the scotopic range depended exactly upon the background's effect upon rods. This confirms Flamant & Stiles (1948). But when the background was small, threshold was elevated more by a long wave-length than a short wave-length background equated for its effect on rods.

3. The influence of cones was explored in a further experiment. The scotopic increment-threshold was established for a short wave-length test spot on a large, short wave-length background. Then a steady red circular patch, conspicuous to cones, but below the increment-threshold for rod vision, was added to the background. When it was small, but not when it was large, this patch substantially raised the threshold for the test.

4. When a similar experiment was made using, instead of a red patch, a short wave-length one that was conspicuous in rod vision, threshold varied similarly with patch size. These results support the notion that the influence of small backgrounds arises in some size-selective mechanism that is indifferent to the receptor system in which visual signals originate. Two corollaries of this hypothesis were tested in further experiments.

5. A small patch was chosen so as to lift scotopic threshold substantially above its level on a uniform field. This threshold elevation persisted for minutes after extinction of the patch, but only when the patch was small. A large patch made bright enough to elevate threshold by as much as the small one gave rise to no corresponding after-effect.

6. Increment-thresholds for a small red test spot, detected through cones, followed the same course whether a large uniform background was long- or short wave-length. When the background was small, threshold upon the short wave-length one began to rise for much lower levels of background illumination, suggesting the influence of rods. This was confirmed by repeating the experiment after a strong bleach when the cones, but not rods, had fully recovered their sensitivity. Increment-thresholds upon small backgrounds of long or short wave-lengths then followed the same course.

Full text

PDF
517

Selected References

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

  1. ARDEN G. B., WEALE R. A. Nervous mechanisms and dark-adaptation. J Physiol. 1954 Sep 28;125(3):417–426. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1954.sp005169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alpern M., Rushton W. A., Torii S. The size of rod signals. J Physiol. 1970 Jan;206(1):193–208. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1970.sp009006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Blakemore C., Campbell F. W. On the existence of neurones in the human visual system selectively sensitive to the orientation and size of retinal images. J Physiol. 1969 Jul;203(1):237–260. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1969.sp008862. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cleland B. G., Enroth-cugell C. Quantitative aspects of sensitivity and summation in the cat retina. J Physiol. 1968 Sep;198(1):17–38. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1968.sp008591. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Enroth-Cugell C., Hertz B. G., Lennie P. Convergence of rod and cone signals in the cat's retina. J Physiol. 1977 Jul;269(2):297–318. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1977.sp011903. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Flamant F., Stiles W. S. The directional and spectral sensitivities of the retinal rods to adapting fields of different wave-lengths. J Physiol. 1948 Mar 15;107(2):187–202. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1948.sp004262. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Lennie P., MacLeod D. I. Background configuration and rod threshold. J Physiol. 1973 Aug;233(1):143–156. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1973.sp010302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Makous W., Boothe R. Cones block signals from rods. Vision Res. 1974 Apr;14(4):285–294. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(74)90078-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. RUSHTON W. A. VISUAL ADAPTATION. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1965 Mar 16;162:20–46. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1965.0024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Sachs M. B., Nachmias J., Robson J. G. Spatial-frequency channels in human vision. J Opt Soc Am. 1971 Sep;61(9):1176–1186. doi: 10.1364/josa.61.001176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Sakmann B., Creutzfeldt O., Scheich H. An experimental comparison between the ganglion cell receptive field and the receptive field of the adaptation pool in the cat retina. Pflugers Arch. 1969;307(3):133–137. doi: 10.1007/BF00592079. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Sternheim C. E., Glass R. A. Evidence for cone and rod contributions to common "adaptation pools". Vision Res. 1975 Feb;15(2):277–281. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(75)90219-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Westheimer G. Rod-cone independence for sensitizing interaction in the human retina. J Physiol. 1970 Jan;206(1):109–116. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1970.sp009000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Westheimer G. Spatial interaction in the human retina during scotopic vision. J Physiol. 1965 Dec;181(4):881–894. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1965.sp007803. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES