I have often heard it said that colour vision is restricted to the centre of the field of view and that there is no true perception of colour in the peripheral field (the brain employing various tricks that result in objects retaining their colour as they move away from the centre of field).
I don’t believe it to be true.
I have devised an experiment and I would be obliged if a few dopers would try it and post (honest)results:
Find 10 similar objects of different colours (crayons, pencils, felt-tip pens are good) - it must not be possible to distinguish between them by touch.
Put all 10 items behind your back.
Staring straight ahead, take one of the items and hold it at arm’s length, out to your side, but behind your peripheral view
Move it slowly forward, ideally to a position no less than 90[sup]o[/sup] to the centre of your field of vision.
Attempt to tell the colour (all the while staring straight ahead)
Return the object to the group behind your back and shuffle them
Repeat 10 times
Assuming you were able to perceive colours, post your results below in this format:
T
hese are my actual results; I got 8 out of 10 - it’s hard to tell between pink/orange/yellow, although the second time around, orange was easier, but red, blue and green are easy to tell apart, moreover, red really looks ‘red’ in my peripheral field of view.
hey, he took a fact that I have never in my life heard to be true, did a sorta unscientific experiment, them disproved the fact that I have never heard anyone ever claim was true…
cool!
Then you have to prove that the rods in the peripherial area of the retina can in fact detect color.
This is a very old experiment. The results I’ve seen are pretty conclusive for the hypothesis you disagree with. I’ve done it many times. One particular difficulty is keeping your eyes focused straight ahead and not peeking. Another is confusing seeing the object with seeing the object in color. I just tried it again, focusing intently straight ahead, and even though I could see a “black” pencil in my peripherial vision, I kept thinking that I didn’t really see it and wanted to move it until it was more “clear”.
Clearly more research is required; I’m telling you I can definitely tell the difference between red and blue in my peripheral view - this is true of objects I have not even seen before (i.e. it isn’t just that my brain remembers the shade of the thing and tricks me; if someone else prepares the coloured objects and inserts them into my peripheral view, I can still tell the difference) - I’m not saying that it’s nearly as precise as looking at them directly, but I can see colour there.
As I understand it, the peripheral vision is simply less sensitive to color…therefore more sensitive to B&W. This is a well-known fact to any good backyard astronomer. You can train yourself to use this to one’s advantage. More detail is seen in black and white due to the fine contrast. By looking through a telescope at the moon, for example, and training yourself not to look straight on, but rather view indirectly out of the corner of your eye, you can pick up much more detail. (You kinda learn to focus your eye off-center from the center of the viewing field.)
Also, when viewing the night sky, you can detect harder-to-find objects of lower magnitude when using your peripheral vision. When viewed directly, these objects are lost. This trick will help you find various Messier objects, for example, otherwise lost by direct viewing under non-ideal viewing conditions (when contending with some light pollution.) - Jinx
Actually, I don’t think I have to prove anything of the sort; your cite indicates that cones are found across the entire retina, albeit much more sparsely toward the edges.