This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anatomy: Gross High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy. Neuroscience Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anatomy section is lacking, should have reference to layers of eye. Reference to Uvea is completely missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jared999 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does the eye do? How does the eye work? How does the human eye differ from other eyes? How do we think it evolved? How does it develop? What are the natural variations? What are the common corrective measures? What genes inpact its development or function? How does the optic nerve and brain process their signals? I came to this article assuming that there would be some discussion on the range of light that the eye could sense. That there is no information here just reflects very badly on the article.173.189.76.52 (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article is clearly not a WP:FA. Would you like to actually edit it? I could help. Please contact me at my talk page. Wikipedia is written by volunteers. Would you please volunteer? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of what you are looking for is at Visual system. There are also many other articles, for example, articles on all three photoreceptors in the retina. Have you looked around enough? --Hordaland (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who knows something about this, please check this sentence:

"Hence, a dynamic contrast ratio of about 1,000,000,000:1 (about 20 f-stops) is possible.[5]"

An IP has added three zeros to that long number. Vandalism or fact? Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick google search, didn't read through that many scholarly articles but a million to one (or slightly higher) seems like a pretty common figure. Even if it was true, a billion (10⁹) to one is 30 f-stops, not 20. — Reatlas (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has fixed it, thanks. (MaterialScientist, if I recall correctly.) --Hordaland (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was 11 to 16 orders of magnitude, or 10 in most ordinary situations. For example, the sun at noon is about 10 times brighter than at sunset (assuming the physical horizon coincides with the astronomical horizon, i.e., 90 degrees from the vertical). A flash of lightning can be 10 times as bright as the sun at noon without being so blindingly bright that we can't see the shape of the lightning bolt. These last two order of magnitude are extraordinary in that they are unsafe unless extremely brief (millisecond to nanoseconds). In vision experiments with 10-20 nanosecond laser pulses people have perceived fully saturated color at 30-50W/cm, which I think comes out to six orders of magnitude above the setting sun. At the opposite extreme, the faintest star is 10-11 orders of magnitude more faint than the light of the setting sun (which is the brightest thing that be safely seen in a multi-second exposure). The faint star would have to be seen against an extremely dark sky. In vision studies they've gotten people to see another order of magnitude below that with an extremely wide field, flickering at some optimal rate such as ~10Hz. For the sake of simplicity, most vision researchers just stick with what average people are actually likely to see under ordinary conditions, in which case it's only 10,000,000,000 or ten log units (careful not to use the American/French word "billion" since that means trillion in British English). Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing:

"The retina has a static contrast ratio of around 100:1 (about 6.5 f-stops)."

Where is the source for this claim? Missing numbers? Few references:

[16] https://books.google.fi/books?id=DR9UyqLkgH8C&pg=PT110 p.92: "The eye is capable of registering a contrast range of approximately 1000:1." No references to this claim is given.

[18] https://books.google.fi/books?id=LL5orppYlJsC&pg=PA1 p.1: "Humans can see detail in regions that vary 1:10^4 at any given adaptation level." No references to this claim either.

Can somebody help this mess here?

"However, in any given moment of time, the eye can only sense a contrast ratio of 1,000." says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation_(eye)

[4] "Sensory Reception: Human Vision: Structure and Function of the Human Eye", Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. 27, 1987 might be offered as a reference in here. I don't have an access to that, can someone verify? And should we find more recent sources?

These images are available, as part of a large donation of medical illustrations from Blausen Medical listed here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(A source of potential confusion is the distinction between the optical axis and the visual axis. The optical axis is a path through the center of the cornea through the retina sphere center. It intersects the retina at a non-descript location, the posterior pole. The visual axis is the off-axis path through the center of the retina sphere connecting a fixation point in the field of view with the fovea centralis. The visual axis and the optical axis intersect at the center of the retina sphere, i.e., the focal point.Patkelso (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Pat Kelso - a layman)[reply]

A large amount of the Eye irritation section seems to be copied and pasted from the sourced noted in the page, as well as other sources. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This should be followed up by someone who knows how to investigate such things. The section is nearly identical to this, but that may, of course, not be the original source. That web page has a copyright notice at the bottom. It would appear that the owner/author can be reached at info@sandrastark.co.za <info@sandrastark.co.za> in South Africa. --Hordaland (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I came here for information about the eye because I wanted to know what the lump is in the middle part, the red lump inbetween the eyelids. what is that? there is no page on wikipedia that actually shows the anatomy of the eye area. you show the orbit, the bones and all that, the eyeball, the eyelids, but not the bit inbetween the eyelids. what is up with that? and encyclopedia is supposed to have information on things, but there is no information on this as far as i can tell. there are words that describe things but I don't know what those words are or what they refer to? an article on the 'eye' should be about the eye IN GENERAL. that is the whole thing, if somebody kicks me in the eyelid, that is part of my eye. why is it not referenced in the article for 'eye'. your page right here, is not showing 'eye' it is showing 'eyeball'. it's wrong. so maybe I am making demands, but I'm not the one with the knowledge. you guys are. I would fix it myself but I don't know the information that needs to go in. it's specifically what I am currently looking for. 31.49.172.191 (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this thing - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacrimal_caruncle this should be in a diagram on the main page for 'eye'. I just found it on google. wikipedia should have it on hte main 'eye' page. because people want to know about the eye. 31.49.172.191 (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of criticizing, why not add yourself information? Or, if you are uncomfortable with the Wikipedia workings, politely ask for a volunteer editor to make changes, describing your suggestions? Most of us "guys" are not knowledgeable, but simply amateurs with the patience to do research and spend our free time to make the results available to the community. If you "demand", perhaps purchasing a book could be the answer. --Robertiki (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i would say 'racial' in the title but maybe only after the word 'race' has attained some kind of consensus of meaning. the arc representing binocular vision is presented as some kind of constant, not just here but on the web in general. wikipedia is read by nearly everyone in every country. in the vast majority of cases, measurements and estimates made by western scientists using western participants is partly, if not wholly misinformation from the standpoint of the reader. this page in its current state, refers to confirming the potential for lateral vision by the cornea being visible to a bystander 100° to the side of the subject's fovea. by this reasoning if it is possible to google an image of a face profile where the camera is nearly 90° to the subject's side and both corneas are in frame, then that person should be expected to have near-180° binocular vision. (out of 200° total periphery) how does everybody feel about that? Longpinkytoes (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sites like quora and stack exchange are glutted with requests for the fps of the human eye (frames per second) and while the answer might be here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell that page is tl;dr even for someone who knows that adjacent cones tag each other in and out, so to speak, so that the recovery time for a rhodopsin molecule is a few times longer than the actual recovery time of human vision, although this does not take into account the latency inherent in the 5cm the impulses travel the optic nerve, but then the question might not require how far behind the retinas the brain is lagging. anyway we could save the web a lot of clogging if we could concisely answer that question here. :) 06:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photopsin mentions parts of the cycle happening in the range of picoseconds which might suggest that cone cells can refresh 10,000,000,000fps (ten billion frames per second) meaning our eyes seriously outstrip our brains. for reference, birds have a huge midbrain that results in more instinctive, less reasoned behaviour in order to deal with the visual information that results from flying very fast (389kph) while simultaneously having a huge field of view. by contrast bats that fly using sound data rather than imagery can get by just fine with mammalian-sized midbrains. all of this to say there are mammals that utilise very similar eyes to our own yet require much more brain real-estate to handle it.

this section for dummies: birds actually fly so fast that the scenery moving past them would suffer frame drop presumably placing them at great risk for their personal safety; and as a result, instead of having more eyes or lower resolution eyes, they just have bigger brains. Longpinkytoes (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please find and add what's the human view angle in square degrees or steradians? For just 1 eye and for 2 eyes. Thanks. Bonomont (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found a source for 2 eyes, added that info. Still looking for the human view angle of just 1 eye. Bonomont (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are three photos of eyes in this article and ALL are of white people with light-colored eyes!! Come on Wikipedia editors, surely you can do much better than that!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:639C:C901:753E:64E3:5A2A:6E37 (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed two templates about needing citations. This article has almost a hundred citations and certainly does not suffer from unverifiable information, but rather some of the sections are so generic you can read about it in virtually any textbook, such as the dimensions of the eye. Therefore, fewer references in that section should be sufficient. If there is a persistent feeling about inadequacy of citations, please improve the page by adding as many citations as deemed necessary. Thank you, Revanchist317 (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is good information on anterior in Wikipedia, but someone wants to use a limited amd not helpful wiktionary definition instead. Why?

In spite of claims that the article has many reference, there is incorrect information in the article that has no sources.

I would like to edit, but I'm being chased away. Someone else, please fix this article. It needs organized and many corrections. Good luck.Matternotdissent (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Matternotdissent, you seem to taking every single thing personally. I don't know who you are talking about with that stuff about Wiktionary definition. I reverted this edit, because you didn't explain why you removed that content. If you are going to be so adamant about things, maybe you should start by explaining what you were doing in the first place before you start huffing and puffing. No one had a problem with this edit of yours. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of issues fixed:

• 'The human eye can differentiate between about 10 million colors' is a great claim but it's entirely pointless and misleading, humans can only see about 1-2 million colours if physiological trichromats.
• 'Conscious' perception is equally misleading. The fact that this signal can be conscious doesn't mean it always is, see blindsight.
• The signal from the eyes doesn't code depth, which previous editors pointed out, but it doesn't really code anything else either, colour, shape, and identity of the object as well as depth all almost entirely come about in the visual system, notably visual areas in the occipital lobes and beyond in the visual streams, but also in places like superior colliculus. Therefore, it would be incorrect to leave colour but remove depth. It is also not true that a single eye cannot encode depth by the way since the information about overlapping objects can serve as a depth cue as well as the degree of flattening the lens to bring the object into focus.
• The human eye can detect a single photon. That's misleading as well, humans can, according to Hecht and those who corroborated these results later, fairly reliable tell if a stimulus is present in two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) ballpark 300 photons. Approximately 10 photons is the theoretical limit what humans might be capable of seeing but we can never reach this.

I hope everyone can agree with my edit. I'll provide references for any of these claims if requested. NB, I added a link to the human brain which is central, most important part of actually seeing anything at all, that should be in the lead section on human eyes. Cheers, Revan (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'The human eye can detect a single photon' is not misleading. Tinsley et al (2016 Nature Communications) demonstrated above-chance detection of a single photon. However, I think your changes are good and have substantially improved the lead. ParticipantObserver (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard about that publication, that sounds really cool. I think, notwithstanding the veracity of this fact, it probably shouldn't be in the lead anyway. But thank you for pointing this out. Revan (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

123 2400:1A00:B040:1D09:8826:13D3:67A5:7C68 (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forward March recorded in Chanel studios Lincolnshire 27.34.108.89 (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Orders_of_magnitude_(numbers) mentions that "the trichromatic color vision of the human eye can only distinguish between about an estimated 1,000,000 different colors", without providing a source. In my opinion that seems a lot. In my estimation it's probably closer to 27000 to 216000. In an case, this article is silent about it, and should probably mention something about it. Dhrm77 (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is a part of the eye that is not mentioned. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The eye has given rise to numerous cultural and religious symbols and phrases (as supported by including but not limited to: Evil eye, Eye bead, Eye of Fatima, Eye of Horus, Eye of Ra, Third eye, Eye of Providence, Chashme Baddoor, and Nazar battu. Plus, eyes are sometimes utilized in horror, further suggesting the attributed significance. Perhaps there can be a section (or even an article) explaining the existence and the origin of such patterns. These symbols cannot be solely attributed to eyes, for most look closer to the human eye. Even if these symbols were to be attributed to vision itself, that would still imply a significant cultural connection between the eye, vision, and some other concepts. Existent human being (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very nice to have 3D model of the eye, so that people can explore it from thier prefered angle; I uploaded this one. But it was not accepted what would need to be changed/updated about the model before it would be acceptable for the article?

Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text did not talk about development of human eye e.g.what germ layer is it derived from 2401:7000:DB28:9501:8577:86E5:80A3:F25C (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]