Talk:Averted vision
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Cone density
It doesn't seem that the mention of the density of the cones in the fovea is relevant, as the article on scotopic vision states that cones are non-functional in low light. So the rather that the rod density is higher than the cone density has nothing to do with averted vision, simply the fact that the rod density itself is nonexistant in the fovea, and rods are the effective type of optical receptor in low light. I'd suggest a re-wording, maybe I'm missing something. 128.227.68.119 12:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I think you are correct that the density is not really important: what is important is the absence of rods in the center. I was mainly going off what I had read in this article. I reworded it to make it more clear and concise. Feel free to improve it further if you can. Danski14(talk) 18:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Unverified claim with no citations or supporting evidence.
How appropriate is this sentence in an encyclopaedic context: "By developing the technique, some observers report a gain of up to three or four magnitudes (15:1 to 40:1)." Really? An improvement by a factor of FOUR magnitudes / 40 TIMES simply by practicing, without any citations or any other material to back it up? By the same argument, millions of people "report" being kidnapped by aliens, sometimes more than once in their lives. Does that make it a verifiable event? Old_Wombat (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Averted vision/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
|---|---|
| The article appears to be based on more folklore than fact.
Suggesting averted vision might improve threshold visibility by 3-4 magnitudes, a factor of 15 to 40 in brightness seems unrealistic. I have never noted a loss in sensitivity near my point of fixation of this magnitude. Modern texts on perimetry, a common clinical technique in ophthalmology, consistently show the peak sensitivity of the visual system corresponds to an area within one-half degree of the point of fixation [Anderson, D. (1987) Perimetry: with and without automation, pg 25]. At 8-16 degrees from the point of fixation, the visual acuity of the eye is reduced by at least a factor of five. Try viewing the Pleides at 8-16 degrees from your point of fixation (after first viewing them at your point of fixation. You will do well to observe any of the group. 72.194.115.118 (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC) I was unaware this tried-and-true observing technique could be considered "controversial." If it is "folklore" then it is pretty much universal folklore among everyone I've ever known who was more than a casual astronomer. | |
Last edited at 02:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 08:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Averted vision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070328210404/http://vegas.astronomynv.org:80/Tutorials/avertedvision.htm to http://vegas.astronomynv.org/Tutorials/avertedvision.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100124194641/http://www.avertedvision.net:80/ to http://www.avertedvision.net
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)