Temporal summation in a photoreceptor: Dependence on response magnitude

Wasserman, Gerald S.; Kong, King-Leung

doi:10.1016/0042-6989(75)90179-0

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Here we have a case in which a strong and easily recorded receptor signal seems to mediate a behavior at threshold. The same generalization was reached earlier from an analysis of partial summation effects in human observers (Wasserman & Kong, 1975). It is therefore absolutely essential for psychobiologic analyses to be based on appropriate behavioral data as well as on appropriate physiological data: Physiological responses are so often dependent on response magnitude that one can reach quite different conclusions in the absence of constraints provided by behavioral data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

Limulus psychophysics: Temporal summation in the ventral eye.

Wasserman¹

1978

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Physiological experiments on the properties of temporal summation in single cells of the peripheral visual system of Limulus have shown that the type of temporal summation and the value of the critical duration depend on the way in which the investigator arbitrarily chooses to analyze the same physiological response. The behavioral expression of temporal summation should therefore depend upon the way in which the central nervous system actually analyzes responses transmitted by peripheral structures as well as upon the nature of these peripheral responses. Accordingly, the present two behavioral experiments investigated the analysis of temporal summation carried out by the central nervous system of Limulus by investigating the psychophysics of temporal summation mediated by the ventral eye. Supersummation occurred in both psychophysical experiments up to critical durations near 4.5 sec, which was approximately the same as the reaction times or latencies of the behavioral responses at threshold. The degree of supersummation was extreme; a fourfold change in stimulus duration required an almost 40,000-fold change in stimulus intensity to remain at threshold. Even though some features of physiologically recorded receptor potentials have critical durations less than 10 msec, these findings suggest that the central nervous system of Limulus can integrate peripheral signals over intervals of many seconds. Since the source of the supersummation is the nonlinearity of the receptor transfer function at high levels, these results also indicate that a behavior at threshold can be mediated by a strong neural response.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

Limulus psychophysics: Temporal summation in the ventral eye.

Wasserman¹

1978

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When Bloch's law is carefully investigated with single flashes, small but reliable deviations from perfect reciprocity occur in both psychophysical and electrophysiological investigations, even in the primary photoreceptor. (See Wasserman & Kong, 1975, for a review of this material.) It would not be surprising if similar small deviations occur in the masking situation as well.…”

Section: Integration Versus Interruptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual masking: Mechanisms and theories.

Felsten¹,

Wasserman²

1980

Psychological Bulletin

Self Cite

254

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These studies have compared intracellular recordings taken from single receptors with the behavior of intact subjects. Problems studied have included: the problem of temporal summation, or the tradeoff between stimulus duration and intensity (Kong & Wasserman, 1978a, 1978bWasserman, 1978;Wasserman & Kong, 1975); the problem of the psychophysical function, relating sensation quantity to stimulus intensity (Wasserman, Felsten, & Easland, 1978, 1979Wasserman, 1981); and the problem of perceptual masking, or the effect that one stimulus has on the perception of a second stimulus , 1979a, 1979b, 1981Wasserman, Lo, & Easland, 1976).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%