ReviewDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2017
[Comparative analysis of light sensitivity, depth and motion perception in animals and humans].
Review in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unusual Mathematical Approaches Untangle Nervous Dynamics.Biomedicines · 2022Review
- [Contrast sensitivity and visual acuity in animals].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study examined how humans perform regarding light sensitivity, depth perception and motion vision in comparison to various animals.
objectiveThe parameters that limit the performance of the visual system for these different functions were examined.
methodsThis study was based on literature studies (search in PubMed) and own results.
resultsLight sensitivity is limited by the brightness of the retinal image, which in turn is determined by the f‑number of the eye. Furthermore, it is limited by photon noise, thermal decay of rhodopsin, noise in the phototransduction cascade and neuronal processing. In invertebrates, impressive optical tricks have been developed to increase the number of photons reaching the photoreceptors. Furthermore, the spontaneous decay of the photopigment is lower in invertebrates at the cost of higher energy consumption. For depth perception at close range, stereopsis is the most precise but is available only to a few vertebrates. In contrast, motion parallax is used by many species including vertebrates as well as invertebrates. In a few cases accommodation is used for depth measurements or chromatic aberration. In motion vision the temporal resolution of the eye is most important. The ficker fusion frequency correlates in vertebrates with metabolic turnover and body temperature but also has very high values in insects. Apart from that the flicker fusion frequency generally declines with increasing body weight.
conclusionCompared to animals the performance of the visual system in humans is among the best regarding light sensitivity, is the best regarding depth resolution and in the middle range regarding motion resolution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.