|WikiProject Medicine / Ophthalmology||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Anatomy||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|Fovea centralis received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
I think I have deduced from clues elsewhere in the article that the main diagram shows a horizontal section through the right eye. It would help if this was stated explicitly in the caption. 18.104.22.168 17:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Chromatic aberration, pigment absorption of blue light
How the presence of a blue light-absorbing pigment acts to reduce chromatic aberration is rather unlcear. A short explanation detailing how it occurs would be much appreciated! 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
When it says: "where only cone photoreceptors are present and there are virtually no rods."
It doesn't make sense. First it says there are "only" cones, but then it says "virtually" no rods. Can someone make this more clear? I would like to know the correct answer. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
"micrometres" is a length not an area
The Quote is.."The perifovea contains an even more diminished density of cones, having 12 per 100 micrometres versus 50 per 100 micrometres in the most central fovea" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave3457 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe square microns?
Rods or Cones in Parafovea
"The fovea sees only the central two degrees of the visual field, which is roughly equivalent to twice the width of your thumbnail at arm's length." First, two degrees probably is two degrees in visual angle. Second, this citation is outdated, the new edition of the book is from 2005. Third, this citation is worthless, since no research has been performed. The citation is to a book that just states exactly the same, without any citations. There is no research to base this statement on, not in wikipedia and not in the cited book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- The human fovea is around 5 degrees according to Franco et al. (2000) Conservation of absolute foveal area in New World monkeys. A constraint on eye size and conformation. Offspinner (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
50% of visual cortex
"The fovea comprises less than 1% of retinal size but takes up over 50% of the visual cortex in the brain." This is almost certainly incorrect. I don't know where to find the exact number, but for V1/V2/V3 it's around 30%, if you consider the human fovea to be 5 degrees. See Schira et al., (2007) "Two-dimensional mapping of the central and parafoveal visual field to human visual cortex" and Schira et al., (2009) "The foveal confluence in human visual cortex." Offspinner (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Citation for mammalian colour vision
The current article states: "Since cones contain the pigmented opsins that allow humans to discriminate color, the fovea is largely responsible for the color vision in humans, which is superior to that of most other mammals."
How about this reference to a paper written in 1993:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8347768 Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 1993 Aug;68(3):413-71. "The distribution and nature of colour vision among the mammals." I think that the point is that the issue is no longer considered contentious enough to write papers about it. DJMcC (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)