Talk:Visual acuity

But the article is growing a lot by now.... Rafael Sepulveda 20:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply] RE: "the average visual acuity of healthy eyes is 20/16 or 20/12".

AED 22:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply] I'm not pleased with the 'emmetropia' link to point to 'refractive error' page.

Maybe a table with some standard acuity values (e.g. 20/20, 20/40, ... 20/400) and their equivalent diopter ranges?

And although eyesight deteriorates in one's later years, I have not heard that it goes on a steady decline starting from the age of 18 like hearing does.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.138.227.40 (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] As many people are aware, a traditional test of visual acuity is the abilty to distinguish Mizar from Alcor, two stars in the big dipper.

Given that the angle that separates them is about 12 minutes, what is the minimum visual acuity necessary to distinguish them (in terms of 20/x)?

(Granted, it could be considered original research, but if it's only the result of some formula, it's probably not that bad, and I also really want to know.)

The second number, or the denominator, is the relative distance as it is seen by a "normal", emmetropic person.

Similarly, couldn't a slightly nearsighted person have 20/20 vision but have less than that angular resolution when attempting to focus at infinity?

155.212.242.34 (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] In the table of visual acuity scales, shouldn't the decimal corresponding to 20/30 and 6/9 be 0.67, rather than 0.63?

-- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 12:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] On a foot scale, how would myopia (near-sightedness) and hyperopia (far-sightedness) be measured?

DanMat6288 (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] "the sensitivity of the interpretative faculty of the brain" is an early phrase in the summary.

Processing appears to happen in the retina, whence signals are propagated to thebrain not depending on just one photoreceptor, but on several.

Midgley (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] I've just edited this text for 1875: Would Snellen, being Dutch, have worked in feet?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Coskey (talk • contribs) 02:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] In the History section the term VA is supposedly defined recursively with a reference to itself - this is probably incorrect.

I've moved it here because, whilst it may well be correct, I think it would be helpful if someone who knows more than I do about visual acuity could render it less technical and edit the main page as appropriate.

Doesn't that mean that if you have 20/10, you see worse up close, say 1/2?--Dbjorck (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] The statement "because it does not specify the nature of the problem with the lens" I think refers to the ability of all parts of the visual system, not just the crystalline lens.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.94.166.88 (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] "The denominator indicates the size of the letters" I believe this statement is incorrect.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.110.51 (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] The author states "In the expression, 20/20 vision, the numerator refers to the distance in feet between the subject and the chart.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.250.64 (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] There is something inconsistent in the introduction.

Even yesterday I was looking at an eagle and her eyes don't have a much bigger pupil in the sun than ours, which are already near diffraction-limited.

And her eyes are relatively small also, and therefore her pupil can't grow above 6 or 7mm at most, limiting acuity at best to 20/7 or so.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnbc (talk • contribs) 21:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Someone has changed a bunch of word to 'megaman'...?

a quick look at the history shows the first instance is 'brain' > 'Megaman' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.65.196.20 (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] Move in out motion produces pulse producing focusing problems.

rowley (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] I am not an expert in this field, but while reading through the article the following caught my eye: RE: Section 5.1, Legal Definitions, near the bottom of the section it gives this example of notation used in the documentation of visual acuity: "So, distant visual acuity of 6/10 and 6/8 with pinhole in the right eye will be: DscOD 6/20 PH 6/8.

Distant visual acuity of count fingers and 6/17 with pinhole in the left eye will be: DscOS CF PH 16/17."

If these notations are not a typo, and are correct as written, then it would seem an entry discussing how these numbers are derived from the raw data should be included.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.176.175 (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] This article is so technical and full of jargon that an educated laymen cannot understand it.

I have a degree in Computer Science from Cambridge University and am relatively technical in my general knowledge.

-is this worthy of inclusion is procedure responses come to my talk page-thank you PG D'Arcy (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply] The graph in the Physiology section is slightly misleading in that the acuity beyond 40° eccentricity is too low.