> The study also found that iris pigmentation influenced how far apart the two light points needed to be before viewers could distinguish them as separate points. Using a standardized iris color chart, researchers classified each participant’s eye color before analyzing the results. Participants with lighter-colored irises, particularly blue eyes, experienced greater light scatter than those with darker brown irises.
Sounds like the research took a next step beyond previous studies on the same subject. You know, basically how science is supposed to work. Something anyone giving a flippant reply here could have figured out if they actually had read the article.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22527312/
And 1991:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/004269...
It has to do with stray light diffusing much more easily through unpigmented irises than pigmented.
> Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, which is a subgroup analysis of a large prospective trial about visual impairments in European car drivers, we included 853 persons between 20 and 80 years of age and without a history of ocular surgery or any eye disease including cataract. Subjects participated in an ophthalmological examination, grading of lens opacity, and the measurement of visual functions such as IOSL, CS, and BCVA. Dependent on iris color, participants were divided into four groups: light-blue, blue-grey, green-hazel, and brown.
> The straylight function of the human eye depends on eye color, especially at larger angles of scattering. As a potential cause for this dependence, transmission of light through the ocular wall was measured, using a psychophysical method.
Even if this paper turns out to be the "boring" science kind that refines earlier results with different methods, it would still be science.
There have been estimates that up to 80% of published medical and psychology results arrive at incorrect conclusions due to methodological flaws, analysis flaws, and type I errors. And peer review's ability to weed out these problems is vastly overestimated by the public. 100% of the perhaps 80% of published papers that are incorrect made it past peer review.
So replicating and refining earlier results with different methods are really the best tool we have to ensure that science keeps progressing in a truthward direction.
We receive and store any information you knowingly provide to us. For example, if you use our Software to search for your location, we may collect geolocation data (including, without limitation, city names and specific addresses you provide).
We may choose to buy or sell assets. In these types of transactions, customer information is typically one of the business assets that would be transferred.
You can mitigate this by using lenses made from a material with a higher Abbe value. Polycarbonate is the worst, CR-58 is the best, and Trivex is quite good. Trivex is also impact resistant, so it’s an excellent alternative to polycarbonate. The high-index plastics are quite bad, so if you don’t need them, consider asking for mid-index or Trivex instead.
Fluorite lenses FTW. Practically zero aberration. CR-58 pales in comparison.
Black body will probably always be better, but people unhappy with LED often have CRI < 80 LEDs when even 95+ isn’t necessarily great.
They then did some modeling to estimate how well the results could be explained by scattering, chromatic aberration and, neural sampling (the cone cell density factor that you mentioned). They concluded that none of them could completely explain the observed results, but their results seemed to suggest the bulk of the effect is due to optical effects, with neurological factors as a secondary cause.
Refining existing knowledge by examining phenomena in more detail is how science should be done. The pressure to focus on discovering entirely new things is a major cause of the replication crisis.
If blue light actually impaired vision, that would be very notable. It would mean that removing the blue 'channel' for an RGB image would improve acuity. This is not what the study showed, however.
It is mainly just the basic fewer cones bit you mentioned. Which, btw, is easily experienced if you ever look from a distance at neon or led signs that only emit blue light. They'll persistently look out of focus when compared to their surroundings.
It is extremely noticeable for me at night because I can never fully focus on signs using blue LEDs, while red LEDs give me no problem.
https://www.danielsternlighting.com/tech/bulbs/blue/bad/bad....
Also a lot of street lights have been replaced with LEDs, although probably better than Sodium Vapor since that light source has pretty narrow spectrum.
Probably means we should all be using warmer LEDs, instead of like 5000K, 4000K ect... for night lighting.
> Most flying insects cannot see red, orange or yellow light;
> Red preserves night vision. Blue keeps operators awake. Blue and white cause the worst glare. Jet instrument gauges are reddish/orange-ish.
I do wonder - now that most people have a phone with a flashlight - would not the druggies illuminate their own arms with white light and not be too bothered?
I also wear glasses and I feel calmer and more "affected" during these periods when I take them off.