Talk:Retina bipolar cell

Nomenclature
Bipolar cells are so-named as they have a central body from which two sets of processes arise. I never heard of that, and it doesn't sound right, what two sets of processes are we talking about here? Paskari 15:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's right. The cell body, where the nucleus is, has a two processes coming off.  You might think of them like a single dendrite (which branches and receives inputs from photoreceptors) and an axon (which releases neurotransmitter on the ganglion cell).  In fact, as the article mentions, bipolar cells do not have action potentials, so the processes are not called "axon" or "dendrite", but just the generic term "process" (which is synonymous with neurite). Xargque (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"OFF" (hyperpolarising) rod bipolar cells?
Bloomfield and Dacheux in their review in 2001 claim that ON and OFF cone bipolar cells exist, but in rabbit and other mammals only ON rod bipolar cells exist. I recently stumbled upon an article on salamander retina (Wu, Gao, Maple, 2000), where the authors claim that not only ON rod bipolar cells exist, but also OFF rod bipolar cells and bipolar cells that can synapse on both rods and cones. Could some please clarify this and amend the article respectively? 79.72.201.10 (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Convergance
The article claimed that cone bipolar cells are supplied by exactly one cone only. Although this may be the case with midget bipolar cell, most cone bipolar cells accept input from numerous cones.Paskari 16:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Color coded diagram is not colorblind friendly
The colors in the main diagram are too desaturated to be distinguished by many colorblind people. Which cells in the picture are the bipolar cells? Can somebody insert a description that is useful to people who can't see the difference between pink and light blue? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.10.173 (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Article expansion
I am speaking for a visual neuroscience class at the University of Texas that is planning to improve this article. Do any of the other editors have an issue with us replacing what you have done? I assure you the article will include everything that is written now, as well as a great amount of additional information presented in greater detail. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.86.241 (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Functionality
This part doesn't look right: "However, the mechanism for producing the monochromatic surround of the same receptive field is under investigation." This is talking about center-surround, presumably in relation cone cells plugging into a horizontal cell, which then plugs into a bipolar cell. With L-M (red-green) center-surround, the neurons can't tell the difference between L- and M-cones because they are the same except for the opsin. Thus, they (the horizontal cells) pick one at random to be the center, then pick a random assortment of other L- or M-cones to be the surround. That means the surround is not really monochromatic. What the horizontal cells measures is the difference between the center and surround. Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Bipolar cells (do not) accept synapses from horizontal cells?
The following note in bold was added to the Structure section of the article by a presumably well meaning anonymous editor last month:

"Bipolar cells are so-named as they have a central body from which two sets of processes arise. They can synapse with either rods or cones (rod/cone mixed input BCs have been found in teleost fish but not mammals), and they also accept synapses from horizontal cells XX WRONG, HC only project to photoreceptors, not to BCs. The bipolar cells then transmit the signals from the photoreceptors or the horizontal cells, and pass it on to the ganglion cells directly or indirectly (via amacrine cells)."

I have moved the note to the talk page, as it clearly belongs here, and replaced it with a dispute tag. I haven't made any other changes to the current text, as I lack the relevant expertise on the topic, but I encourage editors who are more familiar with the subject to evaluate this claim and make any necessary corrections, hopefully with a citation to supporting sources. –Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)