Dynamic and steady‐state light adaptation of mouse rod photoreceptors <i>in vivo</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Electroretinographic (ERG) methods were used to investigate the effects of background illumination on the responses of mouse rod photoreceptors in vivo. A paired-flash procedure, involving the recording and analysis of the ERG a-wave response to a bright probe flash presented after a brief test flash, was used to derive the rod response to the test flash in steady background light. A related, step-plus-probe procedure was used to derive the step response of the rods to backgrounds of defined strength. 2. Steady background light produced a maintained derived response that was graded with background strength. Determinations of the full time course of the derived weak-flash response in steady background light, and of the effect of background strength on the flash response at fixed post-test-flash times, showed that moderate backgrounds reduce the peak amplitude and duration of the flash response. 3. The response to stepped onset of an approximately half-saturating background (1.2 sc cd m(-2)) exhibited a gradual rise over the first 200-300 ms, and an apparent subsequent relaxation to plateau amplitude within 1 s after background onset. Determinations of normalized amplitudes of the derived response to a test flash presented at 50 or 700 ms after background onset indicated substantial development of background-induced shortening of the test flash response within this 1 s period. These findings indicate a time scale of approximately 1 s or less for the near-completion of light adaptation at this background strength. 4. Properties of the derived response to a stepped background and to test flashes presented in steady background light are in general agreement with photocurrent data obtained from mammalian rods in vitro and suggest that the present results describe, to good approximation, the in vivo desensitization of mouse rods by background light.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".