Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / February 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Accommodative response Define Please

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
amdx - 31 Jan 2008 19:04 GMT
I want a simple definition of the term
accommodative response sometimes spelled
accommo-dative response.
Is it as simple as how much the lens adjusts trying to focus?
                        Thanks, Mike

The term is used in the lighting article at,
http://www.lightenergysource.com/ScotopicTechnical.htm
Mike Tyner - 31 Jan 2008 20:09 GMT
Accommodative stimulus is the optical distance to an object, and yes,
"response" can be measured as contraction of the ciliary muscle.

The word is never hyphenated. That was a word-wrapping artifact.

As far as the article, I was a little puzzled by how significant rods can be
in normal room light. The physiologists told us that rods were pretty well
oversaturated at normal room illumination. It's why you have to wait 30-60
minutes in the dark for rods to "dark-adapt".

-MT

>   I want a simple definition of the term
> accommodative response sometimes spelled
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> The term is used in the lighting article at,
> http://www.lightenergysource.com/ScotopicTechnical.htm
Mike Ruskai - 02 Feb 2008 02:59 GMT
>Accommodative stimulus is the optical distance to an object, and yes,
>"response" can be measured as contraction of the ciliary muscle.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>oversaturated at normal room illumination. It's why you have to wait 30-60
>minutes in the dark for rods to "dark-adapt".

Well, they don't need a build-up of rhodopsin to see in bright light.
Though it's always been my understanding that in normal illumination,
rods are primarily responsible for motion detection.
Signature

- Mike

Ignore the Python in me to send e-mail.

p.clarkii@gmail.com - 02 Feb 2008 03:40 GMT
On Feb 1, 9:59 pm, Mike Ruskai <BUTthann...@DONTearthlinkLIKE.netSPAM>
wrote:

> Well, they don't need a build-up of rhodopsin to see in bright light.
> Though it's always been my understanding that in normal illumination,
> rods are primarily responsible for motion detection.

rods are only partially functionally under normal daylight
conditions.  the majority of vision in humans under those lighting
conditions is considered to be contributed by cones which operate
under much higher light levels.

adaptation has much much more to do with other mechanisms than opsin
content.  there are neural pathways within the inner and outer
plexiform layers of the retina, and within the CNS, that tune vision
to the ambient lighting conditions
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.