1990
DOI: 10.1016/0042-6989(90)90134-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Genetic studies of variation in rayleigh and photometric matches in normal trichromats

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
17
1

Year Published

1991
1991
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
1
17
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This idea is supported by the close match between the variability of the cone ratios of parasol ganglion cells and H1 cells (Fig. 4) and by the substantial individual variability in the peak wavelength of the photopic luminosity function (Lutze et al, 1990). It predicts that the L/(L ϩ M) ratios of parasol ganglion cells and psychophysical measures that depend on luminosity (Cavanagh and Anstis, 1991) will covary.…”
Section: Variability In the Strength Of L And M Cone Inputs To Ganglisupporting
confidence: 57%
“…This idea is supported by the close match between the variability of the cone ratios of parasol ganglion cells and H1 cells (Fig. 4) and by the substantial individual variability in the peak wavelength of the photopic luminosity function (Lutze et al, 1990). It predicts that the L/(L ϩ M) ratios of parasol ganglion cells and psychophysical measures that depend on luminosity (Cavanagh and Anstis, 1991) will covary.…”
Section: Variability In the Strength Of L And M Cone Inputs To Ganglisupporting
confidence: 57%
“…Are genetic factors involved in the determination of the L:M cone ratio? Data from 52 observers from five families suggested that the transmission of L:M cone ratio was a result of allelic variation at a single gene locus [21]. However, the gene has not been identified yet.…”
Section: The Human Retinal Cone Mosaicmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…35). On the one side are experiments involving Rayleigh matching in which the distribution of matches made by trichromatic subjects is multimodal (36)(37)(38); in other experiments, however, the match distribution is found not to be multimodal (39,40). The interpretational difference between these two sets of experiments is whether or not the match variations of normal human subjects can be considered to reflect an additional polymorphism of the human M and L photopigments.…”
Section: Cone Photopigment Polymorphismmentioning
confidence: 99%