Back
to top
Biology a level aqa - the retina and synapses
Watch this threadPage 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
username1946
Badges:
12
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
If there were no synapses, and therefore no selection of pathways, is it possible, at a level depth, to get too much sensory information from the retina?
In general, are some/most impulses from rods and cones deselected by synapses so only the important/relevant impulses are sent to the brain, ie maybe when you're trying to focus your eyes on something?
THank u in advance
In general, are some/most impulses from rods and cones deselected by synapses so only the important/relevant impulses are sent to the brain, ie maybe when you're trying to focus your eyes on something?
THank u in advance
0
reply
Wannabevetnurse
Badges:
20
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report
#2
(Original post by username1946)
If there were no synapses, and therefore no selection of pathways, is it possible, at a level depth, to get too much sensory information from the retina?
In general, are some/most impulses from rods and cones deselected by synapses so only the important/relevant impulses are sent to the brain, ie maybe when you're trying to focus your eyes on something?
THank u in advance
If there were no synapses, and therefore no selection of pathways, is it possible, at a level depth, to get too much sensory information from the retina?
In general, are some/most impulses from rods and cones deselected by synapses so only the important/relevant impulses are sent to the brain, ie maybe when you're trying to focus your eyes on something?
THank u in advance
Well no, because cone cells are synapsed to one bipolar neurone. Whereas Rod cells are synapsed to three, so Cones have a higher visual acuity (see things more clearly) Rod cells go through spatial summation, so you see things less clearly.
0
reply
macpatgh-Sheldon
Badges:
20
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report
#3
Hi doglover and Mr/Mrs/Miss/Lord/Prof X (sorry!),
The answer above by doglover is broadly in tyhe right direction, but needs a little editing, unless there is a difference in the retinal architecture of cats/dogs (I would not know cos a dog bit me as a schoolboy - ouch!).
"No synapse would mean a shorter diffusion distance for the neurotransmitter to travel through, so you would get alot of impulses, I think"
The neurotransmitter [in this case in the synapse between photoreceptors and bipolar cells] is glutamate [btw], which has an inhibitory effect [hyperpolarization] on some bipolar cells and an excitatory effect [depolarization] on other bipolar cells. The point to grasp is that although the neurotransmitter in reality does travel from the cell body [where the mitochondria necessary to provide energy for the synthesis of the neurotransmitter reside], if there were no synapses [our hypothesis], then there would be no need for ANY neurotransmitter cos this chemical is ONLY ACTIVE IN TRANSMISSION OF AN IMPULSE ACROSS A SYNAPSE, NOT ALONG THE AXON. You have very modestly said "I think" so I hope my answer does not upset you!
"Well no, because cone cells are synapsed to one bipolar neurone. Whereas Rod cells are synapsed to three, so Cones have a higher visual acuity (see things more clearly) Rod cells go through spatial summation, so you see things less clearly."
You are right ion saying "well no" [!] and you are also correct in saying that each cone is connected to one bipolar cell, so that maximum resolution is possible with cones [no info loss]; however, with rods the picture is the other way round from what you say i.e. more than one rod [not necessarily three] synapse onto each bipolar cell so that this convergence reduces detail of info reaching [ultimately] the occipital cortex [Broddman's area 17 of the cerebral cortex]. It does lead to summation of photon enegy in the rod system, allowing scotopic vision [vision in subdued light] as against the photopic vision possible with cones [which are highly concentrated in the macula for central vision [i.e. seeing the item that the eyes are directed at].
Apologies to OP for delving into slightly more detail than needed at A level but I believe in teaching/learning more than what is needed so that what is needed becomes a trifle [yummy!
Be safe both of you [and the remaining six billion, 999 million, 999 thousand, nine hundred and 98 others!
M.
The answer above by doglover is broadly in tyhe right direction, but needs a little editing, unless there is a difference in the retinal architecture of cats/dogs (I would not know cos a dog bit me as a schoolboy - ouch!).
"No synapse would mean a shorter diffusion distance for the neurotransmitter to travel through, so you would get alot of impulses, I think"
The neurotransmitter [in this case in the synapse between photoreceptors and bipolar cells] is glutamate [btw], which has an inhibitory effect [hyperpolarization] on some bipolar cells and an excitatory effect [depolarization] on other bipolar cells. The point to grasp is that although the neurotransmitter in reality does travel from the cell body [where the mitochondria necessary to provide energy for the synthesis of the neurotransmitter reside], if there were no synapses [our hypothesis], then there would be no need for ANY neurotransmitter cos this chemical is ONLY ACTIVE IN TRANSMISSION OF AN IMPULSE ACROSS A SYNAPSE, NOT ALONG THE AXON. You have very modestly said "I think" so I hope my answer does not upset you!
"Well no, because cone cells are synapsed to one bipolar neurone. Whereas Rod cells are synapsed to three, so Cones have a higher visual acuity (see things more clearly) Rod cells go through spatial summation, so you see things less clearly."
You are right ion saying "well no" [!] and you are also correct in saying that each cone is connected to one bipolar cell, so that maximum resolution is possible with cones [no info loss]; however, with rods the picture is the other way round from what you say i.e. more than one rod [not necessarily three] synapse onto each bipolar cell so that this convergence reduces detail of info reaching [ultimately] the occipital cortex [Broddman's area 17 of the cerebral cortex]. It does lead to summation of photon enegy in the rod system, allowing scotopic vision [vision in subdued light] as against the photopic vision possible with cones [which are highly concentrated in the macula for central vision [i.e. seeing the item that the eyes are directed at].
Apologies to OP for delving into slightly more detail than needed at A level but I believe in teaching/learning more than what is needed so that what is needed becomes a trifle [yummy!
Be safe both of you [and the remaining six billion, 999 million, 999 thousand, nine hundred and 98 others!
M.
1
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
