In Perception, instructed by Mark Berg, we learned about the differences between rods and cones. Both are used in the processing of images, while receiving input from the processors input. In short, input is images coming in through receptors, while processing occurs in the brain distinguishing imagery from one another.
Rods and cones are input receptors. Rods are large and cylindrical, best at low levels of light and peripheral vision. Cones are small and tapered, and are best for color as well as the centering in on objects in receiving input. The central part of vision is called the fovea.
Since acquiring this knowledge, I can’t help but wonder whether using the rods or cones would be the stronger part of my vision. Being conscientious of my vision, I have noticed that my vision is clear while looking at objects with the center of my vision (using the fovea), and not as clear while looking through my peripherals (using rods). I question whether this is common considering if one is not looking at an object in the center of it, intuitively it would make sense for the object to be less clear. However, considering there are a 126:1 rods/neurofiber ratio. And only a 6/1 cones/neurofiber ratio, it makes sense that our rods make up for the considerably more effort and work needed to see objects clearly from one’s peripherals. My hypothesis is that we can see things just as clearly from our peripherals as opposed to the center of our vision because of the significant number of rods in our eyes rather than cones, creating high convergent levels.
It's really nice.
E waste dealers in delhi, India