4.4 Article

Individual differences provide psychophysical evidence for separate on- and off-pathways deriving from short-wave cones

出版社

OPTICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1364/JOSAA.31.000A47

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Gatsby Charitable Foundation [GAT2903]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Distinct neural populations carry signals from short-wave (S) cones. We used individual differences to test whether two types of pathways, those that receive excitatory input (S+) and those that receive inhibitory input (S-), contribute independently to psychophysical performance. We also conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) to look for genetic correlates of the individual differences. Our psychophysical test was based on the Cambridge Color Test, but detection thresholds were measured separately for S- cone spatial increments and decrements. Our participants were 1060 healthy adults aged 16-40. Test-retest reliabilities for thresholds were good (rho = 0.64 for S- cone increments, 0.67 for decrements and 0.73 for the average of the two). Regression scores,isolating variability unique to incremental or decremental sensitivity, were also reliable (rho = 0.53 for increments and rho = 0.51 for decrements). The correlation between incremental and decremental thresholds was rho = 0.65. No genetic markers reached genome-wide significance (p< 5 x 10(-7)). We identified 18 suggestive loci (p < 10(-5)). The significant test-retest reliabilities show stable individual differences in S- cone sensitivity in a normal adult population. Though a portion of the variance in sensitivity is shared between incremental and decremental sensitivity, over 26% of the variance is stable across individuals, but unique to increments or decrements, suggesting distinct neural substrates. Some of the variability in sensitivity is likely to be genetic. We note that four of the suggestive associations found in the GWAS are with genes that are involved in glucose metabolism or have been associated with diabetes. (c) 2013 Optical Society of America

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据