1989
DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.1989.sp017678
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Light capture by human cones.

Abstract: SUMMARY1. The variation in visual efficiency of light with varying pupillary entry (the Stiles-Crawford effect) was measured to determine the proportion of light incident on the cones that escapes them without recovery by other cones.2. The variation in delectability of interference fringes with varying pupillary entry of the interfering beams was measured to determine the proportion of incident light that was recaptured by cones in the dark stripes after escaping cones in the bright stripes of the fringes.3. … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
16
0

Year Published

1992
1992
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
2
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Chen and Makous 30 suggested cross-talk (light escaping one cone and being absorbed in adjacent cones) as a potential reason for the broadening of the SCE with respect to the acceptance angle of a single cone. However, as it has been pointed out 14,30 , cross-talk is more likely at the foveal center where the cones are more tightly packed than at 2 deg, where the cone coverage is smaller. From Gorrand and Delori's model 21 differences could arise also from differences between the angular dependence of the absorption and emission of light by the photoreceptors.…”
Section: Reflectometric Measurements and The Stiles-crawford Effectmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Chen and Makous 30 suggested cross-talk (light escaping one cone and being absorbed in adjacent cones) as a potential reason for the broadening of the SCE with respect to the acceptance angle of a single cone. However, as it has been pointed out 14,30 , cross-talk is more likely at the foveal center where the cones are more tightly packed than at 2 deg, where the cone coverage is smaller. From Gorrand and Delori's model 21 differences could arise also from differences between the angular dependence of the absorption and emission of light by the photoreceptors.…”
Section: Reflectometric Measurements and The Stiles-crawford Effectmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…In general, the optical measures give a narrower estimate of the angular tuning of the cones than do psychophysical techniques, [12][13][14] though this is in part due to the fact that for peripheral pupil entry psychophysical techniques are sensitive to light that escapes from one cone and is absorbed by neighboring cones. 18 In the current paper we examine the normal directional properties of the cones near and in the fovea. The cones of the human retina vary widely in their properties across the retina.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among other very interesting results, Makous and his co-workers [53][54][55][56][57][58][59] and Applegate and Lakshminarayanan [21] correctly point out, as can be inferred from comments made above, for small pupil apertures, certainly for 3 mm diameter entrance pupils (1.5 mm radial distances) and perhaps a bit more, the two functions (the linear integrated result, and the predicted integrated result obtained by incorporating the SCE-1 function) differ only slightly if refraction is well corrected, and the system is reasonably centered upon the subject's entrance pupil. Makous et al have also addressed, and thoughtfully considered, issues regarding effects of coherence and non-coherence of imagery, loci of adaptation, quantum activation rates in photoreceptors, effects of orientation obliquity on excitation processes, etc.…”
Section: When Do Matters Considered Here Warrant Consideration?mentioning
confidence: 99%