Electroretinographic recordings (ERGs) and visually evoked potentials (VEPs) were performed as previously described (Nusinowitz et al., 2007). Briefly, mice were dark-adapted overnight, anesthetized and their eyes dilated. A gold wire electrode referenced to a similar gold electrode in the mouth, and a tail ground electrode, were used to record the ERG. For VEP recordings, a needle electrode was positioned subcutaneously 3 mm lateral to lambda over the contralateral visual cortex. The mouse head was positioned orthogonal to a large opening in a highly reflective Ganzfeld dome in which brief light flashes were presented using a Grass Photic Stimulator (PS33 Plus, Grass Instruments, Quincy, MA). Responses were amplified (CP511 AC amplifier, Grass Instruments), digitized (PCI-1200, National Instruments, Austin, TX) and computer averaged as described (Nusinowitz et al., 2007). ERGs were recorded under dark- and light-adapted conditions to evaluate rod- and cone-mediated retinal function, respectively. ERGs were recorded to achromatic flashes over a 4-log unit range of intensities (0.003–5.0 cd-s/m2). Cone-mediated ERG responses were obtained on a rod-saturating background (32.0 cd-s/m2). VEPs were recorded to the highest flash intensities (0.29–5.0 cd-s/m2) under dark-adapted conditions, which provided the most robust VEP signals to evaluate visual pathway function (Nusinowitz et al., 2007).
Do you have any questions about this protocol?
Post your question to gather feedback from the community. We will also invite the authors of this article to respond.
Tips for asking effective questions
+ Description
Write a detailed description. Include all information that will help others answer your question including experimental processes, conditions, and relevant images.