A Request Made Again
January 5th, 2008 | 2 Comments »On the subject of a predictive experiment that could be performed that would validate (or invalidate) my explanation.
I have proposed such an experiment on a number of occasions to the Roorda group at Berkeley (last on April 3, 2007) and will repeat that request here:
“I repeat my proposal that measurement of the wavelength sensitivity of ‘retinal mosaics’, made by Rooda & Williams (Nature, Vol.397, pp 520-522, 11 February 1999) at a retinal eccentricity of one degree, be made at larger retinal angles. I predict that such measurements will show an increasing density of green ‘cones’ with increasing retinal eccentricity reaching a maximum density (i.e., total green response) at 7-8 degrees. These green sensitive centers will not (could not because there are very few cones here) correspond to cone response but rather to cone-rod appositions which reach a maximum at that point”
GCH
1/5/08
I believe these measurements were made, at 10 degrees from the fovea, and there is no difference in L or M cone numerosity compared to the fovea. The results are to be presented at ARVO this year.
But in typical fashion, you will forge ahead with blinders on, ignoring volumes of data that your theory can’t explain.
February 29th, 2008 at 5:19 amI really do not understand your comment. Are you speaking of new data although you use the past tense? If you know of new data taken at larger retinal angles I would like to see it!
From the 1999 Roorda and Williams Letter (”The Arrangement of the Three Cone Classes in the Living Human Eye”, Nature, Vol. 397, 11 February 1999, p.520) quote: “The mosaic was illuminated…..at a retinal eccentricity of one degree nasal from the foveal center”.
It was my point that what they observed was exactly what they should have seen at this retinal angle.
Thanks for your continued interest! The web site had over 11,000 viewers in January!
GCH
February 29th, 2008 at 6:46 am